[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 34 KB, 390x344, watbird.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703305 No.2703305 [Reply] [Original]

>the diameter of the universe is 93 billion lightyears
>the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years
the universe expands faster than the speed of light

>> No.2703315

It did for a little while.

>> No.2703314

The VISIBLE universe, numbnuts.

And it may also blow your mind to know that the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter at a point in space. It was a rapid expansion of space itself. There is no center, and no edge.

>> No.2703318

correct, the creation of an area that can be affected by the laws of the universe is happening faster than a phenomenon of the universe happens.

>> No.2703319

yes it does.
is this new to you?
also it's the visible universe, the entire thing might be bigger.

>> No.2703317

>the diameter of the observable universe is 93 billion lightyears
fix'd for ya

and yes, it does

>> No.2703328

>>2703314
(cont)
Also, yes, sufficiently distant objects appear to be receding "faster" than the speed of light, and they will never become visible to us (assuming expansion continues). This does not violate relativity, however, which governs relative velocities at any given location.

>> No.2703331

>>2703314
How do you know there's no centre or edge?
What's the difference between an explosion of matter and a rapid expansion of space? What evidence suggests the latter happened?

>> No.2703332

>>2703317

wut ?

How can you see something 46 billion light years from us ?

>> No.2703335

If you read about it, you will find out that the universe is allowed to expand faster than the speed of light. If this was happening today, we would likely not be able to see the stars as the light would never reach us.

>> No.2703336
File: 42 KB, 466x301, 1293948436433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703336

>>2703305
FYI: Shit can travel faster the the speed of light.

Light is only constant (limitied) for non-inertial reference frames dumbshit. NOT FOR ALL FUCKING REFERENCE FRAMES.

>> No.2703337
File: 32 KB, 200x150, 1_mahna_mahna1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703337

>>2703318
phenomenon

>> No.2703338

>>2703317
>>2703314
is there a universe we can't see? if we can't observe it it doesn't exist

>> No.2703342

>>2703338
>if it can't observe it it doesn't exist
wat

>> No.2703347

light does not travel at a constant speed; it is limited from time to time by the Creator. likely in the beginning it was infinite speed. hope that solves all of your silly problems in thinking that the universe is any more than 6000 years old.

>> No.2703354

>>2703338
he got a point there

>> No.2703359

>>2703347
obv. troll obv
diaf, gfys, ffs, stfu, gtfo, etc.

>> No.2703361

>>2703338
first, your premise is wrong, and second, we cant see that part of the universe because its light hasn't reached us yet.

>> No.2703367

>>2703354
>he got a point there
no, no he don't. Er, I mean ain't.

>> No.2703370

>>2703336
Really? Can anyone confirm/deny this?

>> No.2703376

>>2703361
so the universe is even bigger? that means it was an expulsion of like 100x times lightspeed

>> No.2703386

>>2703370
Yeah, it's right. Expanding space is effectively an acceleration, which make the relationship between the center-of-mass frames of two distant galaxies non-inertial.

>> No.2703390

>>2703376
Nothing was moving faster than light.
Imagine if there were two guys in cars, on a road where the speed limit is 100mph. Both of them drive away from each other (or towards) at 70mph.
Each one sees the other driving at 140mph.
Are either of them breaking the speed limit?

That's what expansion of spacetime is analogous to.

>> No.2703392

>>2703370

That's exactly wrong, C is constant in all reference frames.

>> No.2703396

>>2703376
That isn't a problem

>> No.2703399

>>2703376
> that means it was an expulsion of like 100x times lightspeed
Not exactly. see >>2703314
>the Big Bang was not an explosion of matter at a point in space. It was a rapid expansion of space itself. There is no center, and no edge.
The Big Bang happened everywhere.

>> No.2703411

>>2703392
INERTIAL reference frames.

>> No.2703430

>>2703399
so why did suddenly space exist?

>> No.2703450

>>2703430
Because it did.
If you even think "because god" I will tear your cock off and shove it up your nose.

>> No.2703443

>>2703390
Eh, you're right that the relative velocity that you observe (as a third party) between two objects is not limited to c (it's limited to 2c, if all the frames are inertial), but this isn't quite what's going on here. The space itself expands, and the further apart two objects are, the faster the "velocity" they are flying apart at. This isn't inertial.

The main reason your example bothers me is that it implies a universal reference frame (the road surface) when there isn't one.

Anyway, this "velocty" of space expansion is only a major effect for the distance between galaxies or more.

>> No.2703446
File: 61 KB, 426x421, ?????.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703446

Matter (with a mass) cannot travel through space faster than light.

Space can travel faster because it's not fucking travelling through space, it's expanding itself.

>> No.2703463

>>2703430
There is no satisfying answer to the question "Why the big bang" at this time. If there is such an answer, it is probably beyond the reach of what we can observe.

>> No.2703464

>>2703443
I know, hence 'analogous'.
Difficult to explain the expansion of spacetime.

>> No.2703460 [DELETED] 

>>2703450
even if it was god, where did he come from?

>> No.2703467

>>2703450
even if it was god, where did she come from?

>> No.2703473
File: 31 KB, 380x353, 1299110175750.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703473

>>2703446

You can't have a mass without matter, silly.

>> No.2703476

>assumption that the big bang was exactly 0 light years across

>> No.2703481

>>2703467
he came from last tuesday

>> No.2703502

>>2703473
Space is not mass, you crippled cunt.

>> No.2703505
File: 19 KB, 270x319, eminem-alive.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703505

>>2703370
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_light_in_non-inertial_reference_frames

If you look at any source that says "speed of light is constant (and limitied)", it is always mentioned to be "in the context of a intertial refrence frame ". The speed of light being connsat was for "Special Relativity".

Special relativity isnt first principle (it isnt fundemental). Special relativity is an appromimation (for certain cases of general relativity. Hence the speed of light being constant (and limited) only applies to these "special cases".

It doesn't apply to the "universe" on any large cosmological scale.

>> No.2703524

>>2703305
matter cannot travel faster than c
space in between matter is not matter
the space between matter expands at a rate faster than c
I was alwasy told to think about it like points on a balloon as you blow it up, points stay the same size but the space between all the points gets larger (of course this is not what the universe is like but you have to start somewhere)

>> No.2703534

Theoretically, if anything could travel faster than the expansion of the universe, it would eventually leave the universe, maybe ceasing to exist, entering another universe or even fraking with the universe's laws.

>> No.2703557

>>2703502
he's not refering to that part.

>> No.2703576

>>2703534
or entering into the state of nothingness from which the universe came, which has always made me think
if you could exist outside the universe would you never age?
as the flow of time only exists within the universe, as such would it even be possible for your cells/atoms etc to decay?
also physics hurts my head,
saw a programme about the universe yesterday; they dicussed (briefly) the final stage of the universe, which is nothing but particles slowly decaying.
apparently this process will take longer then the life of the universe, the programme claimed that if 1 atom represented a year there wouldn't be enough in the galaxy to measure how long this process takes

>> No.2703571
File: 736 KB, 262x186, 1300037922683.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703571

Ahahahaha, faggots.

>> No.2703582
File: 187 KB, 600x536, kuG24.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703582

>> No.2703593
File: 26 KB, 460x363, eminem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703593

>>2703524
>>2703524
It is obvious you are very very young.
It is nice you are trying to think about this shit. But you are wrong.

Matter can travel faster or slower then c, it is GR. What you are meaning to say is that matter cannot travel faster then c in a inertial system. This doesn't apply to all systems though. Not all systems are inertial.

The wikis are ok on these subjects. You should read up. Good luck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

>> No.2703598

>>2703534
>>2703576
No.

There is no evidence that the universe has any edge whatsoever. And exceeding the c locally means you're going back in time, so eventually things would get very hot and dense as you go back to the Big Bang.

>> No.2703610

>>2703359
that's what i get for revealing a mystery to you?

>> No.2703623

>>2703593
He's talking about locally measured velocity (well-approximated by inertial frames), which cannot exceed c. You're talking about distances large enough that the assumption of near-inertial frames is violated by the expansion of space (requiring GR instead of SR).

He's not as wrong as you seem to suggest.

>> No.2703642
File: 404 KB, 1024x914, 1296718001462.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703642

Posts like OP is the reason why i leave /sci/ for 4cho n and never looked back

>> No.2703659

if the universe expanded at the speed of light then all the light would be around the edge of the universe you retard

>> No.2703673

>>2703659
8/10 would rage again

>> No.2703698

>>2703642
>left
>never came back
>somehow still posting...

LOL COOL LOGIC BRO.

>> No.2703702

>we see something that's 46,7 billion lightyears away
>only 13,7 billion years since the Big Bang

How is it even possible?

>> No.2703713
File: 11 KB, 180x231, 1267858543958.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703713

>>2703623
OP talks about the big bang. He is talking about the universe as a whole. HUGE fucking distances. GR is needed for that shit......DURRRR.

LMFAO

>> No.2703742

>>2703702
For the millionth fucking time. General Relitivity!

>> No.2703770
File: 32 KB, 386x412, 1296025250494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2703770

>>2703305

>Your mom is expanding faster than the speed of light

>> No.2704005

>>2703576

I think everything would cease to exist, since time and space exist together. You are right about that if time alone didn't exist we would live forever at a frozen state, but that won't happen because space and time exist as one and without space, nothing can exist.

>>2703598

You are probably right, but i just thought that exceeding the speed of light doesn't necessarily means that i am going back in time.
Like this, imagine i look at someone and somehow run towards him before the light reaches his body and returns into my eyes (allowing me to see him). Even if i go faster than the light, i will bump into him, and that doesn't mean i went back on time.
Maybe I'm just saying shit, if so, please correct me.