Does this BLOW anyone else's mind?

[SaltyNuts]

So if you believe the accelerating expanding universe theory, billions and billions of years from now, some form of life will look up at the night sky from whatever planet or object they are on, and the only light they will be able to see is that from stars in our galaxy (and maybe a few nearby galaxies that are closely gravitationaly bound to the Milkey Way). There will be no way to see the other billions and billions of galaxies because they will be receding from the Milkey Way faster than the speed of light.

So, that life at that time would conclude that there was just the Milkey Way (and maybe a few other close galaxies). They would have absolutely no way to test for the true nature of the universe - i.e. that there are billion and billions of galaxies beyond light reach.

Now, I don't think this as some logical contradiction. But doesn't it just seem funny? A theory of the universe that predicts in the future that forms of life will not be able to understand the true nature of the universe, and thus not even understand the theory itself (unless, of course, such knowledge is passed down through the ages)? It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth...

 

[Matthiasa]

Truth be told by the time that would actually happen most if not all of the stars that would have been most suitable for sustaining life would have died leaving only existing stars or the formation of newer stars that less suitable for life to to exist. Yes, smaller stars can last much longer but they also are much less stable and thus having a bad habit of nuking orbiting planets every so often.

 

[sandorski]

What if that was already the situation that we were in? Perhaps what we consider the center of the Universe was only one of many "start" points that we can see many Galaxies that started there, but there were other such points we can't see.

 

[cbrunny]

What if that was already the situation that we were in? Perhaps what we consider the center of the Universe was only one of many "start" points that we can see many Galaxies that started there, but there were other such points we can't see.

no, no. don't get him going. he's already trying to sound smart in one thread. don't give him credibility.

 

[momeNt]

Accelerating expanding universe theory is pure hogwash. The only way that would be possible is if the creation of dark matter and anti-energy is happening faster than the loss of energy from the initial big bang, just simply not possible. Eventually it will stop, and it will all contract again into the center of gravity of the universe, reach a critical point of and explode again.

By my count, and based purely on the number of deja vu experiences I have had, this has happened at a minimum 11 times previously, and will probably continue to happen indefinitely.

 

[SaltyNuts]

What if that was already the situation that we were in? Perhaps what we consider the center of the Universe was only one of many "start" points that we can see many Galaxies that started there, but there were other such points we can't see.

Sure, there are many multi-verse theories out there. But doesn't it just stink a little bit that the theory predicts that one day the underlying universe, and thus the theory itself, very likely could not be predicted by observation? It just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Sonikku]

I've been on the internet for over twenty years.

Nothing blows my mind any more.

 

[Bird222]

So if you believe the accelerating expanding universe theory, billions and billions of years from now, some form of life will look up at the night sky from whatever planet or object they are on, and the only light they will be able to see is that from stars in our galaxy (and maybe a few nearby galaxies that are closely gravitationaly bound to the Milkey Way). There will be no way to see the other billions and billions of galaxies because they will be receding from the Milkey Way faster than the speed of light.

So, that life at that time would conclude that there was just the Milkey Way (and maybe a few other close galaxies). They would have absolutely no way to test for the true nature of the universe - i.e. that there are billion and billions of galaxies beyond light reach.

Now, I don't think this as some logical contradiction. But doesn't it just seem funny? A theory of the universe that predicts in the future that forms of life will not be able to understand the true nature of the universe, and thus not even understand the theory itself (unless, of course, such knowledge is passed down through the ages)? It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth...

It's not supposed to be possible to go faster than the speed of light.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It's not supposed to be possible to go faster than the speed of light.

'Speed' based on expansion is different than traveling via a ship or whatever. Two objects can recede from each other faster than the speed of light by moving away from each other at 51% speed of light, but neither travels faster than the barrier itself.

 

[Ichinisan]

'Speed' based on expansion is different than traveling via a ship or whatever. Two objects can recede from each other faster than the speed of light by moving away from each other at 51% speed of light, but neither travels faster than the barrier itself.

They could both speed away from each other at 99.999% the speed of light.


The actual rule is that information can't travel faster than the speed of light. There would be no way for one to influence the other faster than it would take for light to travel between them.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

They could both speed away from each other at 99.999% the speed of light.


The actual rule is that information can't travel faster than the speed of light. There would be no way for one to influence the other faster than it would take for light to travel between them.

They could speed away from each other at faster than the speed of light, if they were traveling away from each other at greater than 50% each on average. Nothing disputes that nor is it restricted by the speed of light barrier.

And yes, what you said second is correct, and correlates what I said originally.

 

[Ken g6]

If you believe in the accelerating expanding universe theory, eventually we'll have a big rip. This will cause all remaining brains to blow up, literally, along with everything else. So, yes.

 

[SaltyNuts]

"They could speed away from each other at faster than the speed of light, if they were traveling away from each other at greater than 50% each on average."

Where does this 50% on average limitation come from Osiris? Nothing says that space can't expand faster than the speed of light, perhaps many times faster. I'm not aware of a limitation.

 

[SaltyNuts]

If you believe in the accelerating expanding universe theory, eventually we'll have a big rip. This will cause all remaining brains to blow up, literally, along with everything else. So, yes.

Well, not all theories of the expanding universe end up in a big rip. And current thinking is that there will likely not be a big rip. But it sure is interesting!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

"They could speed away from each other at faster than the speed of light, if they were traveling away from each other at greater than 50% each on average."

Where does this 50% on average limitation come from Osiris? Nothing says that space can't expand faster than the speed of light, perhaps many times faster. I'm not aware of a limitation.

That's not a limitation. I was stating that, if you had object a moving at 51% the speed of light (from a stationary frame of reference), and object b moving at 51% of speed of light in the opposite direction (from the same stationary frame of reference), they would by definition be moving at 102% the speed of light in opposition of each other. Hence, moving away from each other at 102% the speed of light (from the stationary frame of reference), while not traveling at faster than the speed of light individually.

Mind you, they wouldn't appear to be moving as fast away from each other from each other's frame of reference (object a wouldn't see object b moving at 102% speed of light).

Expansion is completely different, because the method of measurement is increasing along with the expansion of the space between.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Got it Osiris. That makes sense.

"Mind you, they wouldn't appear to be moving as fast away from each other from each other's frame of reference (object a wouldn't see object b moving at 102% speed of light)."

Yep, in fact, objects a and b could never, ever possibly see each other (under the theory).

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Got it Osiris. That makes sense.

"Mind you, they wouldn't appear to be moving as fast away from each other from each other's frame of reference (object a wouldn't see object b moving at 102% speed of light)."

Yep, in fact, objects a and b could never, ever possibly see each other (under the theory).

No, they see each other, they just aren't moving that fast. Light is funny when you're moving fast.

The only instance where they wouldn't see each other anymore is if they are moving faster than the speed of light *via expansion*, in that instance light physically can't traverse the region fast enough because it's being smeared backwards faster than it travels forwards. Also, black holes.

 

[SaltyNuts]

Ah, you are indeed correct Osiris, thanks!

 

[ctbaars]

Yep, in fact, objects a and b could never, ever possibly see each other (under the theory).

a and b can always see each other. Cool game:
http://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/

 

[nakedfrog]

If you believe in the accelerating expanding universe theory, eventually we'll have a big rip. This will cause all remaining brains to blow up, literally, along with everything else. So, yes.