I saw this the other day and I still can't rap my head around it. Apparently, distant quasars show no time dilation despite the red shift the universe experiences. Here's more info:
http://news.discovery.com/space/no-t...t-quasars.html
Printable View
I saw this the other day and I still can't rap my head around it. Apparently, distant quasars show no time dilation despite the red shift the universe experiences. Here's more info:
http://news.discovery.com/space/no-t...t-quasars.html
I have absolutely no idea what you just said.
gravitational folding of space. there's been discussion of using the corona of a star as a magnification unit in order to achieve ftl communication with other solar systems.
not really the same thing, but i figured i'd throw it out there.
sending information faster than c is impossible hope this helps :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cojafoji
That's not totally true for gravity butt I'm not going to argue w/ u :)
Huh? The "ripples" of gravity travel at approximately the speed of light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyon
The universe uses a glitchy game engine or something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InnerGoat
There seems to be indication of odd ftl "communication", eg entagled particles communicating state, but it has been proven that even with this sort of effect it is still impossible to send information faster than the speed of light (and that proof is unrelated to the proof below, otherwise it would be circular logic).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyon
We know that the universe is both relativistic and causal. The possibility of faster than light communication of any sort would allow the possibility of sending information into one's own past which could potentially produce a paradox.
Most people say that is proof that ftl communication is impossible, but I'm going to say instead:
Either ftl communication is impossible OR there exists some basically omniscient, omnipotent, intelligent mechanism for preventing the formation of paradoxes while allowing ftl communication in other circumstances. I would call that mechanism God.
Fortunately for us atheists, there is so far no evidence for the possibility of ftl communication beyond pure speculation.
I'm not sure exactly what this discovery about quasars means, but I've had a certain suspicion about astronomy for a while.
How do we know the composition of a distant star? By its spectrum and luminosity. How do we know how far away it is? By how much lower its luminosity is than we expect it to be. How do we know how fast it's moving? By how much its light is redshifted from what we expect it to be.
The process has some sound principles behind it, but it makes so many assumptions and uses such circular reasoning (it's this far away because it's this bright and it has this composition, and it has this composition because it's this bright and it's this far away) that I call its accuracy into serious question.
The existence of faulty assumptions becomes clear to be with the whole "dark matter" issue. Their conclusion about the position and relative velocities of stars in our universe apparently defies the laws of physics in our universe. So of course they immediately assume that they have correctly measured this and our 'laws' of physics are correct on immense scales (something we have never verified) and therefore there must be some immense amount of matter out there that we just can't detect. See where I get suspicious of astronomy?
Discoveries like this always make me excited. Sure it only raises more questions, but that's the fun part. It allows for further advancement of science! :iamafag:
I still don't get it (which is probably why I'm an artist rather than a rocket scientist).
Are there no simpler terms to put this thing in?
I don't see how you can call these measurements assumptions when they've been tested in a lab. Certain elements have a certain emission and absorption spectrum, a sort of 'fingerprint' of the elements the object consists of, a fact you seem to be aware of in your post. I suppose you can't be entirely sure until you view the object first hand, but I wouldn't go as far as calling these methods "assumptions" when they've been proven to work in a laboratory. Scientists measured objects we knew the composition of, then they applied this method to astronomical objects. We were able to get a man on the moon with the theories proposed by Isaac Newton alone, so what we know can't be that far off from reality. We're simply missing a piece of the puzzle, a piece that unified field theory would probably put into perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar
Yeah, that's what I meant by sound principles behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choking Victim
Let me put it another way. Part of our determination of how big a star is relies on how far away we estimate it to be. Part of our determination of how far away a star is relies on how big we estimate it to be. See what I'm saying?
There are a lot of factors that go into making these estimations, and we can make estimates that are *probably* right within some margin of error. My thinking is that because of some of the circular reasoning and our general lack of knowledge, that margin is too big and the probability not altogether reliable enough to make the sort of claims that I hear made about our knowledge of the universe.
We can get some interesting hypotheses, but when your hypotheses leads you to create more and more convoluted hypotheses to support it ala dark matter and quasars that defy relativity, Occam's Razor should tell you to back off and re-examine your initial assumptions.
Ohh, I thought you were attacking how we measure composition of astronomical objects directly. The science of astronomy has it's flaws, but we've certainly made progress since Galileo's time. There's only so many ways to study objects at unfathomable distances in the cosmos, but I'm certain that it'll only get better as our theories and technology changes. I wish we could travel to these places and study them first hand as much as the next guy, but I'm finding it improbable that we'll discover the means to get there in my lifetime. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar
Oh yeah, definitely, we've made progress and we'll continue to make progress. I'm just a natural skeptic is all.
Yeah, we're not gonna see interstellar travel in our lifetime. That's why I'm writing fiction about the first interstellar voyage, starting around 2150 and arriving around 2450. We can dream, can't we?
e: btw, nice hypercube. It makes my brain hurt.
Well, you never know. It only takes 1 revolutionary break through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choking Victim
My idea is that the distance is so great that the laws governing light and such actually changes. You know, the laws of scale and such- why a grasshopper can jump the equivalent of a human jumping over the eifel tower and live, and yet we can't even make a machine roughly human size that can do it and still function.
I'm no astrophysicist or anything and know that there are flaws in that theory, just my take.
This brings back memories of staying up all night talking about quantum physics and theory with some pipe-band buddies while camping and staring up at the stars... Haha we were so drunk that night... http://leimg.lancersedge.com/images/...8165660635.gif
I tried to find that short story you (I think) posted about a house which was drugging it's owners a while ago. Couldn't find it but. Repost?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Oplawar
np.Quote:
Originally Posted by n00b1n8R
http://www.modacity.net/forums/showt...l=1#post531411
:rolleyes:
if your going to bump a week old thread, contribute to it.
Zilla.
:rolleyes: like zilla.
i'm a mod.
it was a warning.
quiet