 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Everybody knows about the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images
(and if somebody doesn't, please come out of your cave).
Well, redshift can be used to estimate the distance between us and a
galaxy. The next step is rather obvious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2010 4:55 PM, Warp wrote:
> Everybody knows about the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field images
> (and if somebody doesn't, please come out of your cave).
>
> Well, redshift can be used to estimate the distance between us and a
> galaxy. The next step is rather obvious.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg
>
The images are awe inspiring but the words crap. IMO.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 01/12/2010 18:11, Stephen nous fit lire :
> On 01/12/2010 4:55 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Everybody knows about the Hubble Deep Field and Ultra Deep Field
>> images
>> (and if somebody doesn't, please come out of your cave).
>>
>> Well, redshift can be used to estimate the distance between us and a
>> galaxy. The next step is rather obvious.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg
>>
> Nice but: “These galaxies are rushing away from us, in some cases,
> faster than the speed of light”.
> The images are awe inspiring but the words crap. IMO.
Some people will never get the relativity stuff correctly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2010 5:13 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Some people will never get the relativity stuff correctly.
I supoce it depends on their viewpoint ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Nice but: ???These galaxies are rushing away from us, in some cases,
> faster than the speed of light???.
> The images are awe inspiring but the words crap. IMO.
And exactly what is wrong about that statement?
Firstly, general relativity does not forbid the distance between two
points in space (and hence the distance between two particles, or two
galaxies) from growing faster than c. On the contrary, GR *predicts* this
to happen. What GR forbids is a particle *traveling* between two points
faster than c.
The expansion of the universe causes galaxies which are sufficiently
far away from each other to recede from each other faster than c. This
does not contradict GR (but it is, in fact, a prediction of GR). In fact,
at the initial stages of the universe it is estimated that the expansion
rate was exponential, much much faster than it is today. Yet even today
there all parts of the universe which are farther away from us than a
certain distance are receding from us farther than c. This is the basis
for the concept of "cosmological horizon", which basically means that
the observable universe (ie. observable by us) is smaller than the entire
universe.
The expansion of the universe is not the only situation where distances
growing faster than c is predicted to happen. Another situation is within
the so-called ergosphere of a rotating black hole (look it up). A particle
inside the ergosphere (but outside the event horizon) will be dragged to
a speed faster than c with respect to the rest of the universe. Again,
this does not contradict GR. On the contrary, this is a *prediction* of GR.
Secondly, the expansion of the universe causes for the change in distance
between galaxies to accelerate. The speed at which some galaxy is receding
from us is today higher than it was a billion years ago.
What we are seeing in the ultra deep field picture is what those galaxies
looked like billions of years ago. At this moment (in other words, billions
of years *after* the galaxies in question sent those photons which were
captured by Hubble) their recession speed has accelerated to the point
that they are receding from us faster than c.
Again, not against GR, but supported by it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2010 6:10 PM, Warp wrote:
> And exactly what is wrong about that statement?
> ...
So you are saying that the universe is expanding at a speed faster than
the speed of light?
And, if you heard the commentary in Finish you might agree that it is
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 6:10 PM, Warp wrote:
> > And exactly what is wrong about that statement?
> > ...
> So you are saying that the universe is expanding at a speed faster than
> the speed of light?
Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
"While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from
moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other,
there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is
expanding. It is thus possible for two very distant objects to be
moving away from each other at a speed greater than the speed of light
(meaning that one cannot be observed from the other). The size of the
observable universe could thus be smaller than the entire universe."
> And, if you heard the commentary in Finish you might agree that it is
> "dumbed down".
I don't understand this comment.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/12/2010 7:01 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2010 6:10 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> And exactly what is wrong about that statement?
>> > ...
>
>> So you are saying that the universe is expanding at a speed faster than
>> the speed of light?
>
> Yes.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
>
OK, thanks. I did not know that.
>> And, if you heard the commentary in Finish you might agree that it is
>> "dumbed down".
>
> I don't understand this comment.
>
not prepared to do that. Sorry.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:37:51 +0200, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/12/2010 6:10 PM, Warp wrote:
>> And exactly what is wrong about that statement?
> > ...
>
> So you are saying that the universe is expanding at a speed faster than
> the speed of light?
>
This looks like a misunderstanding to me. Isn't that like saying if 2 cars
are moving away from each other each with a speedo reading of 100kph that
they are moving at 200kph?
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Phil Cook v2
Subject: Re: The Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D
Date: 2 Dec 2010 05:25:17
Message: <op.vm20knldmn4jds@phils>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 07:45:38 -0000, Nekar Xenos
<nek### [at] gmail com> did spake thusly:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 20:37:51 +0200, Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>
>> On 01/12/2010 6:10 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> And exactly what is wrong about that statement?
>> > ...
>>
>> So you are saying that the universe is expanding at a speed faster than
>> the speed of light?
>>
> This looks like a misunderstanding to me. Isn't that like saying if 2
> cars are moving away from each other each with a speedo reading of
> 100kph that they are moving at 200kph?
But they are from each other's perspective. If you stood there and watched
them drive away you'd see them both doing 100kph, but why is your
viewpoint more valid than that of either driver's?
A poor analogy for the galaxy movement is to imagine a flag placed either
side of a tectonic rift. With either the plates moving apart or together
can it be really stated that it's the flags that are moving?
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
