Photography-related (light): Please help me understand the creation of the universe

[MikeFairbanks]

Okay, I'm reading about the Big Bang Theory and such, but am having a difficult time understanding it.

Disclaimer: I am a Christian and, therefore, am a creationist. However, I don't assume how God works and don't want this to turn into an argument about God, politics, etc. This isn't the place for it.


My biggest question about the Big Bang is: How is it possible that the universe could expand faster than the speed of light? The Big Bang Theory supposes this, and I read it, but I don't understand it.

Any thoughts?

[-MasterChief-]

i have nothing to add to your post but i will grab some popcorn and watch the thread progress ... or regress ... :p :D :)

[FlyingPhotog]

Chief, pass the salt please?

http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Food/eating-popcorn-03.gif

[MikeFairbanks]

Here's another thought (on light): The nearest star to ours, Proxima Centurai, is 4.3 light years away (which means it takes light--which includes radio waves, infrared, etc--4.3 years to travel from Earth to that solar system). This means that any living creatures in that solar system (if there are in fact creatures and if there are planets orbiting that star) would have plenty of time to respond to our radio signals. If you think about it, we've been sending radio signals into space for a hundred years and nobody has responded yet.

Also, for those of you who think we've been visited by aliens: Wouldn't their radio signals have preceded them years before they arrived? That means they have not, in fact, arrived yet, because if two of their ships talked to each other by radio, the signals would outrun the ships, and we would know they were on the way, just as you can see a car's headlights on the horizon long before it reaches you.

Just a thought or two.

Whatchathink?

[Jon]

The speed of light varies with the medium it's passing through. This is what makes our lenses possible (as the light passes from one medium to another its speed changes; if it makes that transition at an angle, its path is deflected. See also Snell's Law.). So, referring back to Einstein's theories of relativity, the speed of light depends on the reference point of the observer. If we were standing "outside" the Universe as we know it, the speed of light would not necessarily be that which we, from inside it, "know" it to be. In fact, several of the postulated mechanisms for FTL travel within the Universe rely on stepping outside it while traveling ("worm holes", "folded space" . . .).

[Jon]

And "hearing" and "recognizing" are two different things. You're further assuming that interstellar travelers would still be using radio communications not, for instance, gravity waves (which appear to be FTL; i.e. instantaneously everywhere).

[FlyingPhotog]

Perhaps they don't "speak" at all?

"Pure Energy .. Pure Thought"

[-MasterChief-]

.. This is getting good! more popcorn please! ... oh and here's the salt Jay. http://snehavenkat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/salt-shaker.jpg

[MikeFairbanks]

Doesn't Einstein's theory generally state that time travel to the past is impossible but time travel to the future IS possible (although you can't get back)?

Plus, think about this: If you could go back in time one year, you would be in space because the earth would not be in the same place. The sun itself not only spins, but is actually part of a larger mass called a galaxy that rotates like a wheel. The sun takes 240 million years to circle the galaxy one time, and even the galaxy is on the move and is part of a cluster of galaxies.

So time travel, even to the future, is impossible if you're trying to arrive at a specific location and time.

[FlyingPhotog]

Doesn't Einstein's theory generally state that time travel to the past is impossible but time travel to the future IS possible (although you can't get back)?

Plus, think about this: If you could go back in time one year, you would be in space because the earth would not be in the same place. The sun itself not only spins, but is actually part of a larger mass called a galaxy that rotates like a wheel. The sun takes 240 million years to circle the galaxy one time, and even the galaxy is on the move and is part of a cluster of galaxies.

So time travel, even to the future, is impossible if you're trying to arrive at a specific location and time.

I'll Be Right Back...

http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/madhouse/crazy_pilot.gif

Hey! Where'd everybody go?

[MikeFairbanks]

Okay, you're absolutely right about FTL (faster than light) being a possibility (well, at least we can imagine it---so it might be possible), but the idea that aliens in space ships have visited us presumes they are using similar technologies as us. If they are, in fact, flying metal space craft, then we should see them (through our own radio devices) long before they arrive.

And if they are, indeed, able to communicate and travel in a way we cannot comprehend, then doesn't that make us but ants to them, maybe even germs in their world?

And why visit a farmer in Iowa when they could learn more in Manhattan?

[-MasterChief-]

it requires 1.21 gigawatts of energy on the flux capacitor and 88 mph on the Delorean to make time travel possible! :p

[FlyingPhotog]

Okay, you're absolutely right about FTL (faster than light) being a possibility (well, at least we can imagine it---so it might be possible), but the idea that aliens in space ships have visited us presumes they are using similar technologies as us. If they are, in fact, flying metal space craft, then we should see them (through our own radio devices) long before they arrive.

And if they are, indeed, able to communicate and travel in a way we cannot comprehend, then doesn't that make us but ants to them, maybe even germs in their world?

Entirely possible...

People laugh at the notion but it's certainly conceiveable that we're dust on some other Life Form's credenza. The notion that there are things out there to which we are not privvy is not the sole domain of the Creationist point of view.

[MikeFairbanks]

You have that wrong. Gigawatts are what we use here in reality.

They used Jigawatts. Totally different measure. ;)

Sure, it was electrical, but it was powered by plutonium stolen from the Lybians.

[MikeFairbanks]

Entirely possible...

People laugh at the notion but it's certainly conceiveable that we're dust on some other Life Form's credenza. The notion that there are things out there to which we are not privvy is not the sole domain of the Creationist point of view.


I am not a traditional creationist, of course. I don't presume at all to understand how God works in terms of creation. To me, science is our link to God in many, many ways.

But nobody has explained how the universe could expand faster than the speed of light?

In other words: The universe it bigger than it should be.

[FlyingPhotog]

I am not a traditional creationist, of course. I don't presume at all to understand how God works in terms of creation. To me, science is our link to God in many, many ways.

But nobody has explained how the universe could expand faster than the speed of light?

In other words: The universe it bigger than it should be.

I guess that would be a test of faith wouldn't it? ;)

[MikeFairbanks]

Pretty much :)

[k7beb]

My biggest question about the Big Bang is: How is it possible that the universe could expand faster than the speed of light? The Big Bang Theory supposes this, and I read it, but I don't understand it.

The problem you're having is that somehow you've misinterpreted the theory. The Big Bang theory doesn't say that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light at any time.

[xarqi]

Well, just off the top of my head...
My biggest question about the Big Bang is: How is it possible that the universe could expand faster than the speed of light? The Big Bang Theory supposes this, and I read it, but I don't understand it.

Any thoughts?
The classical "Big Bang" theory does not make this assumption, as k7beb pointed out. The modification that involves inflation does. This occurred very very early in the life of the universe, and it is possible that physical laws were not uniform throughout the early universe at that time. After the inflationary period, different locales existed, mutually unreachable because of the lightspeed barrier, and possibly having different physical laws and make-up.


So, referring back to Einstein's theories of relativity, the speed of light depends on the reference point of the observer.
No - this is exactly wrong. Special relativity is predicated on the assumption that the speed of light is IDENTICAL irrespective of the frame of reference of the observer.


Here's another thought (on light): The nearest star to ours, Proxima Centurai, is 4.3 light years away (which means it takes light--which includes radio waves, infrared, etc--4.3 years to travel from Earth to that solar system). This means that any living creatures in that solar system (if there are in fact creatures and if there are planets orbiting that star) would have plenty of time to respond to our radio signals. If you think about it, we've been sending radio signals into space for a hundred years and nobody has responded yet.
There's nobody home.
Also, for those of you who think we've been visited by aliens: Wouldn't their radio signals have preceded them years before they arrived?
If they've been here, they're using FTL. Their radio emissions probably still haven't gone more than a few thousand light-years from their home.

Doesn't Einstein's theory generally state that time travel to the past is impossible but time travel to the future IS possible (although you can't get back)?
We are all travelling into the future at a rate of 1s/s, so that's a given. Go fast enough, and time dilation will allow you to "travel" into the future, in the sense that your experience of duration will be shorter than that of the universe as a whole.

Travel at c, and your perception of time flow relative to the universe stops. The problem as far as travel back in time this way is concerned is that you can't go faster than c by accelerating. That's what relativity implies. There may be other ways.

Plus, think about this: If you could go back in time one year, you would be in space because the earth would not be in the same place. The sun itself not only spins, but is actually part of a larger mass called a galaxy that rotates like a wheel. The sun takes 240 million years to circle the galaxy one time, and even the galaxy is on the move and is part of a cluster of galaxies.
So time travel, even to the future, is impossible if you're trying to arrive at a specific location and time.
Getting to the correct spatial coordinates is a LOT easier than getting to the correct time.

Okay, you're absolutely right about FTL (faster than light) being a possibility (well, at least we can imagine it---so it might be possible),...
Huh?
... but the idea that aliens in space ships have visited us presumes they are using similar technologies as us.
Huh? - Who says? In fact, quite the reverse is the case. We have no technology to carry us to distant stars. If 'they' are making such trips, it must be by using utterly different technology, for which we do not even have a theory.
If they are in fact, flying metal space craft, then we should see them (through our own radio devices) long before they arrive.
Why? They will not be travelling through space, and that's the only direction we are looking in.

And if they are, indeed, able to communicate and travel in a way we cannot comprehend, then doesn't that make us but ants to them, maybe even germs in their world?
That is a matter of attitude, not technology.

And why visit a farmer in Iowa when they could learn more in Manhattan?
There's a lot of cattle in Manhattan? ;)

[lanno]

slightly off-topic, but this seems a good place to post this,

http://www.amnh.org/news/2009/12/the-known-universe/

it's been doing the rounds of those forums frequented by the godless hordes

enjoy!

[MoeIsMe]

Oh dear.
OK... let a physics major try...
There are a little over 500 known stars within 100 light years, and the odds of one of these...
a. having planets
b. having a planet with life
c. having a planet with intelligent life
d. having a planet with intelligent life that uses radios
is probably less than unity.
The other issue is that any planet with intelligent life that had the wherewithall to receive & respond to our radio garbage, that is beyond 50 light years, will not have their radio reply received by us for another 0-50 years.
I don't doubt that there is life out there. Like Carl said: "It would be an awful waste of space". But the chances of communication are slim to none. By the time we get a message from a civilization on a planet circling a star 5,000 light years away (which is pretty close by galactic standards), they might already be blown to bits by their own stupidity. Sorry, I was reflecting on someone 5,000 light years away suddenly getting our signals & then not finding us around anymore by the time they got here.

Anyway, all this doesn't change the fact that charging a Canon from solar power is now quite easy...
http://www.modernoutpost.com/gear/mfr/canon-eos.html

Ah, now there's some stellar technology!
Happy New Year!

[Lonnie]

Travel is a lot faster is you use the 5th dimension.

[Lonnie]

This website may help: http://www.superstringtheory.com/