FYI: Can Anything Move Faster Than Light?

Pause!!

So you mean to tell me that it's not the objects in space that are expanding away from each other but the space itself?

Hmmmm.

If space (i.e. vacuum) is nothing and it's the nothing that's expanding, how is that different from objects moving away from each other in nothing?

Also, if solid matter expanding through the void of space can eventually exceed the speed of light (obviously by some force -- dark energy maybe -- ), whats to say that technology can not be developed to exploit the properties of the energy effecting space for relativistic travel to any point in space?

There's only one truth (not fact but a common truth on this world at least); the universe is infinite. We understand much, but we don't know it all yet, so we can not pretend that the universe will adhere to all of our preconceptions.

Whenever there's a will, there's a way. The more we learn, the more outlandish concepts will eventually be legitimized through our evolved understanding.

I'm sure once we become a type 3 civilization we will just build some huge freaking thing that will keep everything here.

Fascinating!
..Leonard Simon Nimoy, may of said, once upon a time ago.

Hubble & Cosmic Expansion

The theory of Cosmic Expansion is based on the red shift seen in the photos from the Hubble Telescope. The theory assumes that the red shift is entirely due to the Doppler Effect and concludes that the farther away something is, the faster it is going away. To accelerate all the mass in increasing expansion requires a tremendous amount of power and energy. This theory of expansion violates the law of conservation of energy if the energy source is not identified. To balance the energy equation, the theory suggests the existence of Dark Energy.

IMO, the theory of Cosmic Expansion is wrong because it is based on a wrong assumption (that the red shift is entirely due to the Doppler Effect). Conclusions of the Cosmic Expansion theory violate the law of conservation of energy unless some unknown force is powering it.

A simpler explanation is that the red shift is not entirely due to the Doppler Effect. The red shift is the result of the Doppler Effect and Frequency Decay.

Are the frequencies of a photon constant for the life of the photon? Do the frequencies decay, like signal degradation of an analog signal? If the frequency decays over time and length, then the wavelength will increase, causing a red shift. Older photons from farther away will have more Frequency Decay and red shift than newer photons from a source that is nearer. Red shift from Frequency Decay is different than red shift from the Doppler Effect. Frequency Decay and the Doppler Effect both contribute to the total red shift.

If the red shift is not entirely due to the Doppler Effect, then measurements of the red shift can not prove that “the farther away something is, the faster it is going away.” The red shift measurements do not prove that the universe is ever expanding at an accelerating pace powered by a mysterious force and energy. More likely, measurements of the red shift indicate that “the farther away something is, the older the photons are when they get here.”

Thanks,
-Tony

@Tony_Who...interesting comment, this stuff has always fascinated me, however, i have not heard of your hypothesis before, do you have any sources that refer to this or is it just your own thought experiment? cheers

OK people.. back up a bit. Space is not "nothing" Nor is it a true vacuum. We need to stop and redefine "Space" using a centries old definition is counter productive. We have found that "Space"... the area between everything, is actually "Space-Time" and actually acts very fabric like.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

Nasa has proven that our own planet is screwing with space-time. The simple weight and rotation of your planet has skewed space-time around us. Since we know almost nothing (proven factual information, not abscure theory or math) about the mechanics of space-time itself we really can't jump to any actually conclusions here. What if those objects are not spacially moving away, just the area's of space-time between them are growing denser.

I have a huge pet-peeve with the whole "everything moving away" crap. Earth is not the center of the "Big Bang" we are just a surfer on the wave so to speak, so shouldn't something be coming towards up at some speed? Why is EVERYTHING we see out there moving away from us? And when we calculate distance to figure age, we are not taking measurements from the center of the "Big Bang" we are taking measurements from Earth. So saying just because Galaxy ABC is XYZ away from earth, than the age of Galaxy ABC is XYZ. That's not how that works, why can't you super smart scientists realize that. Now, if earth was somehow the center of everything, then yes, that method of age calculation works fine. But it's more like we are looking across a field at someone walking at a vector to ourselves, we cannot gauge how long said person has been walking by the distance between us. That person across the field could have just left their house... or they could have been out for hours/months/days/years, just because they are 100 yards away, doesn't mean they are 100 yards old.

Sorry for the triad/threadjack... it's just one of the many things that gets me going when so called super-geniuses talk about space. Like.. why almost all orbits of celestial bodies within a 20 degree band (give or take) of a perceived horizontal? Looking at our own solar system from the side, everything pretty much lines up within a 20 degree band. Why, if space is truely 3d.. we should be a ball of objects. When we look at massive galaxies, the same thing is prevolent. When people talk about black holes, it again is done so in a horizontal fashion, like looking at it as if it were a whirlpool. We are missing something huge if this is the case and all things tend to fall into a linear band rather than utilizing all possible directions.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

Do they have on single point of which they gage the spead and accelaration of everything else and what is that point?

Tony, on your theory, I can see one major flaw. Ok, so we assume that red shift is a product of distance and time resulting in photon decay. If this were the case, and that the source was not moving away, then the output recieved would only ever decay at the same rate. Thus it would never change at the recievers end.

IE, if there was a water source outputting water at a constant speed, and 10 people each dipped their cups into this stream at the same time, the ammount of water left for each person in the row would always be the same, regardless of how much the previous people extracted. The only way the amount of water available for each person would decrease is if additional people were added.
So if the output was 10 liters, and each cup held a liter, all took water at the same time, the water level would decrease by the same amount each time, adding additional cups would further decrease the amount.
In this analogy, the people are the distance and time between the source and the receiver. If there is only ever a constant distance, the shift and decay would always be the same, but since it is continuing to shift down the red spectrum we have 2 options, either A) the source is growing dimmer from fuel consumption, or B) it's moving away.

Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

While reading this article it made me think of a few questions....
Where does matter and energy come from?

Will science ever figure this out?

I know there are no answers to these questions, I just want to hear what some of you think.

I like the picture!!! :)

Unfortunately, this entire article is based on the Big Bang theory, I would like to hear an explanation of this from someone who believes in the Intelligent Design theory, and before a bunch of people start to say WELL DUH THERE IS NONE BECAUSE INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS JUST STUPID, lets take into account there are many things that have yet to be explained by the Big Bang theory, such as, oh I don't know, how life started?

I'd rather this not get into a huge debate, and before you try to respond to me, I will not be checking back on this post because I get sick of people who take simple requests like this and make it into a huge religious debate. No, really, its never a debate, its generally an argument. A debate uses facts, those are few and far between when I start to read those arguments.

I thought an excellent question from above was, where did the original matter come from in the first place? Where did the stuff for the big bang originate from in the first place?

So what happens when the edges of the Universe are expanding away from us at a relative rate equal to the speed of light? According to relativity wouldn't then the edges of the Universe and the space of which it consists be frozen in time relative to us? Would that create some kind of precieved edge or end of the Universe? If I'm not mistaken the closer to the speed of light an object gets relative to an observer (Earth) it slows in time, increases in mass and turns to pure energy? I think that is accurate, if not please correct me according to the latest ACCEPTED theory, not your take on things. I dont care to argue your personal theory any more than I want to argue who's god is more real.
But is this a possible way of looking at things?

Anyone?

@Shakouhousha
Before anyone else bites your head off, may I say that Intelligent design is not a stupid theory. The possibility of an omnisient being in the universe is not any more impossible that the existence of any other life in the universe. At some point some species must have reached a non-corporeal 4 dimensional state of existence. from there it isnt a far leap to omniscience. Thus god. The better question is, if god started just as we did, is god still perfect? I say yes, omniscience is still omniscience. Second if there are multiple universes as many theorize, is god the god of all of them or does he have a god? Omniscience over one Universe doesn't necessarily mean Omniscience over every Dimension.
Bah Rhetorical nonsense...LOL

Yes religious history makes GOD out to be perfect, but if this is just putting someone up on a pedestal, simply because that what past people did for unanswered questions. Now if we remove the concept of perfect. Is it possible to have one incredible intelligent super being for accomplishing a lot of stuff creativity and making of things? It’s just a question. Don't get all upset or anything, anybody. Are we changing to far from the topic? Can we continue this discussion or not?

Hey, I am just happy to find a neat icon picture today.

TertiusGuy, you are refering to the Twin Paradox, which actually has been proven to be truthful and measureable. Hawkings also talks about different aspects of this Paradox, one involving the use of video equipment to view each other, the twin traveling at speed would be viewed by his earth based twin as frozen in time, while the twin in orbit would watch the twin age quickly. Hokey as it is/was, the latest "Time Machine" movie shows a pretty decent example of what someone traveling at/near the speed of light might witness in the surrounding area if it were possible to both travel at the speed of light and not move.

Now your idea on what happens when all objects are moving at terminal velocity, they would in fact appear to remain stable in relation to everything else that is traveling in the same direction, however this is not the case for objects moving at any other vector. Think of 2 trains traveling side by side at X speed. Neither moving away from each other and if there were no outside gauge of speed, travel, time etc. It would appear as if neither of you were moving (viewers are on the train itself). However if you now move train A away from train B and train B retains it's course, again with no visual markers to denote spacial orientation, both trains would view the other as shrinking away. If both trains were traveling in opposing directions, again with no visual makers to denote spacial orientation, each train would see the other as speeding towards it, while retaining the idea that they are remaining still. All observations from a 3rd party would see movement.
Playing Devil's Advocate since 1978

"The only constant in the universe is change"
-Heraclitus of Ephesus 535 BC - 475 BC

@TertiusGuy & mp Yes I lied I came back to check but my curiosity was peaked when I saw how fast people responded, I am thankful that some people understand how I feel about this, although I do wish someone would agree that they would like to see an Intelligent Design take on this idea if something could go faster than light..

codezero, you comments bring me to my previous question. What is the single point of origin of which all speed and acceleration is calculated from? Is the point of origins for calculations the earth, or something else? I am not a math wiz like you. Do you know the origin single point of calculation?

remember your Heisenburg.

Nothing is truly infinite and nothing is impossible, just improbable.

@CodeZero: 'I have a huge pet-peeve with the whole "everything moving away" crap. Earth is not the center of the "Big Bang" we are just a surfer on the wave so to speak, so shouldn't something be coming towards up at some speed?'

No, because, if we believe the theories put forth in this article, the further away from the center of the Big Bang something is, the faster it is moving away from that center, so anything moving away from that point toward us is moving at a slower rate than we are and would thus be observed as moving "away" from us.

To use a car analogy (it's always cars), imagine a car taking off from a starting line, accelerating at 10 mph². One second later, another car takes off from the same starting point, accelerating in the same direction at 5 mph². The second car will never catch up to the first, and because the first car is accelerating at a higher rate, the distance between the two cars will constantly increase. Relative to the driver in the first car, then, the second car is perceived to be moving away.

@mp and CodeZero...current theory says space is expanding at an ever increasing rate, no matter where you are in the universe other galaxies would appear to be moving away from you, cheers

@codezero
i have an explanation why everythign is movign away from us yet we are still not the center of the big bang, think of it as a shotgun blast and our universe is a pellet amoung that blast, now while that pellet is moving away from the blast the other pellets will move away from it as well, the distance between our pellet is increasing while all the pellet are respectivley moving from the blast. This explanation is very layman(sp?) i think it holds true

I believe in intelligent design. But what I see as not so intelligent is to believe the universe is infinite and expanding infinitely. Where in nature do we see a system that is infinite? Then why do we assume the universe infinite? Because that was the easy way out. The big bang theory contradicts itself because how is the universe still expanding 14 billion years later?

Scientists point to the distance between galaxies increasing in distance as proof of the big bang. But there is another explanation of this phenomenon.

The universe is a double torus that is constantly turning itself inside out. Right now we could be on the “top” of the torus and as we move to the bottom it seems like the space is expanding, but once on the bottom it will soon contract and do it all over again endlessly.

Here is one paper trying to explain it.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0022v1.pdf

Here is the graphic of the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lggn6rbqPA4

As the Universe expands so does time !
And everything we have to measure speed of light !

My single wild guess of no one yet knows the origins of the cosmos, but I guess there is a higher intelligence sprinkling seeds of life among the goldy locks planets and helping intelligence grow. The locals of the planets may call this great farmer a god and indicating towards perfection. I do not go with the perfection idea, but just a higher intelligence, much older than the rest of us. I have nothing to back up my thoughts. It’s just out there.

Ok, my still original question is earth being point B, what is point A to calculate speed and acceleration. Is it simply the center of the cosmos as being point A?

Hey Shak, since Intelligent Design is an evolutionary theory, and this is a topological/cosmological discussion, you either misunderstand ID, or the subject matter of this article. I wonder why they don't use economic theory when discussing farming, or material science when discussing music theory. Oh!, that's right. Because they are COMPLETELY unrelated. Please go read more about Intelligent Design, so you will at least know what it is , and what it covers. As far as the subject goes, I have no issue with intelligent design. You can add "but God is the reason it happened" to the end of any statement you want to, if that is your belief and it makes you happy, then so be it. It doesn't affect me. But please, don't get the impression that ID is anything but faith, not science. It all comes down to stating God is in some way involved, which is unprovable scientifically, so it is faith. Again, no issue with you or your God, just saying faith =/= science.

A lot of great stuff here today.

@Tony_Who

That's an interesting question regarding light and frequency. Anecdotally I'd suggest that yes, the frequency of light can change over great distances. But I think its more related to that photon being absorbed and remitted. Think of shining a light through colored glass. The light "takes on" the color of that glass through the process of absorption and radiance on the part of the glass. That has happened and unknown number of times as billions-year old light traverses the galaxy on its way to our humble telescopes. This process also slows light down, so it might not be as far away as it appears. We also have to take into account that light "bending" as its effected by gravity. So imagine shooting an arrow at a balloon, if the balloon's position were static you'd hit it dead on. But if that balloon were free and it drifts upward in the time it took you to shoot your arrow, you may miss it. This is a rough analogy, but simply saying that the object's we're viewing are presently very far away from where their light suggests they are. Its possible that at some time, some massive cloud of gas altered the path of that light to resemble something more exotic than what's apparent. The path of light very well could have taken on a W shape, making it seam like that object is very far off when it could in fact be quite near, or vice versa. I'd imagine all these changes would affect the color of the light.

@ CodeZero

I agree. Its strange to think that everything is moving away from us, but its also perfectly plausable. Several people have attempted to explain this phenomenon, but perhaps not as in depth as may be necessary. Imagine three cars. They all have the same starting point, but depart from that point 5 minutes apart. The first departure reaches a cruising speed of 15 mph. The second reaches a speed of 10 mph. The last only goes 5 mph. From the perspective of the very first departure, the other two behind it are moving away... when in fact they are moving TOWARDS it... only that first departure is moving so fast that the others fade in the distance. From the perspective of the second departure, the first (one ahead of it) is moving away. The third (one behind it) is moving away as well, but again, this is all because of perspective. That last departure is in fact moving towards the second, its that the second departure is moving away at a rate faster than the third is moving towards it. And lastly, from the perspective of the third, the other two are zooming away.

But this all implies two things. First, it implies an order of creation. Second, it implies the big bang didn't happen all at once, in that, this proto-matter/object shed in stages, even if only femtoseconds apart.

So imagine if you will the Earth exploding and creating all the matter in the universe. The crust would form the first order of galaxies, these would be the 15mph "fast movers." The mantle would then explode and create the 10mph "middle movers." Then the core would explode, creating the 5mph "slow movers." How do I know this model results in what I described above? Because if we were all moving at the same speed everything would appear to be static.

So lets play with this theory for a moment. If its true, whatever group we are not apart of (lets say we are middle movers, then I'm talking about fast and slow movers) might have some interesting new elements we've never seen. It also implies that perhaps there are or is, a single or multiple remnants of "proto" matter that may still exist, though we'll never be able to reah it unless some is in our own galaxy. And lastly, lets not forget that unless each puff a gas that came out of the big bang at unique moments, there must be a galaxy somewhere moving in roughly the same direction and speed as we are!

@shakouhousa

I believe that God created the Universe or perhaps the Big Bang with the intent of it leading to us, and other bings. No point in making a galaxy a billion light years away, further than we will ever go, if nobody is ever going to use it, right?! Do I believe that God literally picked up dirt and made us? Not exactly, but I believe he intended for us to be as we are, and he had that intent when we made everything/the big bang.

Another thing is that God probably put challenges like space in our way to lead us to challenge ourselves and on to greater glory. If we were, in the sense of knowledge, perfect, we'd aspire to nothing.

Do I believe we can evolve into a higher dimension and be god-like? No. That doesn't make sense. True enough, "higher dimensions" enable unique ways of working in and around time and space, but that doesn't equate to how we define God. AND, we don't fully understand these other "dimensions" let alone posit that life exists there and to furhter compound the entire issue, that we could perhaps pierce the barrier (with out fragile bodies) and change dimensions. Of course, this is all that other stuff people talk about like consciousness etc. And true, we don't know everything and I may be utterly wrong. But while I believe in FTL travel, I don't believe we can necessarily exist in 4 dimensions, physically, energetically, or mentally.

Think about this. If I say: Today it is sunny. You understood that, right? What if I say, "Yesterday was sunny." Understood? Cool. Waht if I say "Today is tomorrow's yesterday." Understood? Took a little more effort but sure, why not. Here we go!

Yesterday's tomorrow is today yesterday's future.

A little more effort, right?

Human spatial, temporal reasoning weakens as we introduce more dimensions of time, even though it may be perfectly logical. Now does it seem all that likely to be able to evolve to a point where you could manifest in and out of different times, with your level of intellignece? (No offense, we're all on the same playing field, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't make it).

"Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings such as the United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "creation science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state." it is a belief that people masqqrades as science, that is not an opinion but fact, there is 0 evidence to support ID than the notion the universe is too complicated to be chance, "the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution." thus it too has been kicked out of the schools, so please refrain from including this in a scientific discussion of the cosmos, but of course it will continue to be brought up to spread the faith

For the record not everything is moving away from us. The Andromeda Galaxy for example, is actually blue shifted and headed right towards us on a collision course with the Milky Way Galaxy.

Trivia question. It comes from an artical I recently read.
Can anything travel faster than the speed of light?

Actually there is a mistake in the article. The redshift of galaxies is not due to Doppler Effect. It is actually wavelength of light gets increased because of expansion of the space itself. That is different than Doppler Effect.
This is a common misconception. Maybe people writing this kind of articles should do a better research at first. :-)

There are situations in which it may seem that matter, energy, or information travels at speeds greater than C, but they do not. For example, as is discussed in the propagation of light in a medium section below, many wave velocities can exceed c. For example, the phase velocity of X-rays through most glasses can routinely exceed c,but such waves do not convey any information.

If a laser beam is swept quickly across a distant object, the spot of light can move faster than c, although the initial movement of the spot is delayed because of the time it takes light to get to the distant object at the speed c. However, the only physical entities that are moving are the laser and its emitted light, which travels at the speed c from the laser to the various positions of the spot. Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c, after a delay in time. In neither case does any matter, energy, or information travel faster than light.

The rate of change in the distance between two objects in a frame of reference with respect to which both are moving (their closing speed) may have a value in excess of c. However, this does not represent the speed of any single object as measured in a single inertial frame.

Certain quantum effects appear to be transmitted instantaneously and therefore faster than c, as in the EPR paradox. An example involves the quantum states of two particles that can be entangled. Until either of the particles is observed, they exist in a superposition of two quantum states. If the particles are separated and one particle's quantum state is observed, the other particle's quantum state is determined instantaneously (i.e., faster than light could travel from one particle to the other). However, it is impossible to control which quantum state the first particle will take on when it is observed, so information cannot be transmitted in this manner.

Another quantum effect that predicts the occurrence of faster-than-light speeds is called the Hartman effect; under certain conditions the time needed for a virtual particle to tunnel through a barrier is constant, regardless of the thickness of the barrier. This could result in a virtual particle crossing a large gap faster-than-light. However, no information can be sent using this effect.

So-called superluminal motion is seen in certain astronomical objects, such as the relativistic jets of radio galaxies and quasars. However, these jets are not moving at speeds in excess of the speed of light: the apparent superluminal motion is a projection effect caused by objects moving near the speed of light and approaching Earth at a small angle to the line of sight: since the light which was emitted when the jet was farther away took longer to reach the Earth, the time between two successive observations corresponds to a longer time between the instants at which the light rays were emitted.

In models of the expanding universe, the farther galaxies are from each other, the faster they drift apart. This receding is not due to motion through space, but rather to the expansion of space itself. For example, galaxies far away from Earth appear to be moving away from the Earth with a speed proportional to their distances. Beyond a boundary called the Hubble sphere, the rate at which their distance from Earth increases becomes greater than the speed of light.

To answer your question in short, NOPE!

@ FB36

FYI, it is the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is not limited to just sound waves. It also manifests it self in waves of the EM spectrum. It doesn't matter how the waves are stretched or scrunched. The fact that it does is why it is called the Doppler effect.

If Intelligent Design is true, then one of the following also must be true:
1) Earth is so special that "God" wasted a lot of time on the rest for no real reason.
2) Earth is not special and therefor Jesus cannot be special, as every planet with life would have to have its own Jesus, and at the very least that means millions or trillions of Jesus peeps. At which point all of the stories in the bible are almost useless (as they could not fit in a cosmos and maintain meaning)
3) Jesus was not anymore than a crazy man with a delusion.
So Either Earth is the only world with life (and to quote Carl Sagan "It is an awful waste of space.") or the bible has to be wrong.
We already know the evidence does not support 7 day creationist views but it also contradicts the likelihood of Intelligent Design.

That being said: As with our place in the Universe, humans love to be at the center of all things, but Earth is not the center of the universe, and we found our sun is closer to the edge of the galaxy than the center. I am sure we will find someday that our galaxy has no special position in the universe either. What this means: Humans like to feel special, but reality is we are not that special.

So in conclusion: Intelligent Design while an interesting philosophy, does not support the bible, and will cause Christianity to fail as people start to realize this.

Example: If we have free will as the bible suggests, then the adam and eve of other worlds would have chosen differently (unless we are sooo special that we are the only ones with an adam and eve, and somehow their children were taken to other planets.)

Intelligent Design does not fit Christianity, it may be a solid foundation for a separate religion, but right now it is an attempt to keep a dying belief system alive a bit longer.

@sacridias
1) Assuming the intelligent design only refers to the common uneducated American Christian, yes. Otherwise, assuming the designer is timelss with infinite intelligence, the rest of the universe, and other life, can be important.
2) Again, assuming said being is timeless and with infinite intelligence, Earth can be special along with billions of others of planets harboring intelligent life. Even from a strictly secular position, Earth is likely unique in some way (statically). And to a "Savior," who's to say each planet is unique in salvation? For not likeing the narrow mindedness of many who are religious, you are remarkably narrow minded on the topic itself.
3) The Bible strictly deals (in Christian belief) in human salvation, like most other religions. So if the bible is directed towards humanity (and know the history of it's writing, too), why should it bother to mention life elsewhere?

In conclusion: Try to approach things from an educated attitude before attacking something.

Note: My position on Christianity, when engaged in debate, is intended to be secular. My purpose 95% to point out flaws on both sides, 5% to argue in favor of compatibility (not relevant here).

To this article: I share the pet peeved of many about Earth being the center. Really? Because every time we seem to believe, scientifically we are in the center. And we're wrong.

I believe this area is our generation's "Ether." It is a temporary but heavily flawed explanation. We use it because it's comfortable.

Personally I believe in the eternal universe that recycles it's self as presented here:
http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology8.html

Not only does it explain the past present and future of the universe, the red shift and resolve many big bang theory conflicts, this theory fits perfectly with what our church teaches about the nature of God. (Even though the author doesn’t' believe in God).
"Fascinating".

I have a fantastic idea: An infinetly advanced civilization did some weird transformation and became one singular intelligence, such as The Singularity, and decided to use its incredibly advanced technology to create an entire universe, and filled it with planets that were perfect for life. Then this entity filled one special planet with life, more importantly intelligent life, people so curious and ambitious that their will to survive and excel exceeded themselves and they became obsessed with their Science, the worship of knowledge and logic, all in the name of Advance. Then, these people expanded to other stars, to settle other planets and explore and advance in the name of Man, or Survival, and were very dissappointed to find, no life. anywhere. well, these people despaired, because they had sought all, and knew all, and now they were almost bored with their earth native life. They became a type 3 civilization, advancing their technology and philosophy and becoming so powerful that they began to worry that they were running out of things to discover. How then, could you improve? we warred, we traveled, we fought, and we lived. we loved. But still we fought. Eventually we realized, the end of the world was coming. and when we founded interdimensional technology, to escape the End, we discovered,Who said other dimensions were outside of our universe? Sure, there was the one we moved in, the one we loved in, and the one we Dreamed in, but these, were a part of the one we Lived in. Now what? We thought we died, until we saw that someone had stopped it. As our universe existed for our satisfaction and enjoyment, and would not exist otherwise simply because the universe would mean nothing, to no one, so we existed to this Entity, who created us because He loved us, not that we existed before, but that we could exist, and therefore did exist, to give Him someone to Love. Purpose. It is the essence of all. Forget the Higgs-boson. Forget string theory, which is failing anyway. Forget trying to grow up and think you know all. we are children. Wait, until the answers come.Besides, we're only a type 0 civilization. even a class 1 could P4wn us.

by the way, the logic placed in my story is cryptic, see if you can unlock the concepts, and please build upon them and post your thoughts.

How can you Humans not see something as obvious as the fact that everything being red shifted means that either earth is the center of the universe or that the prevailing theory is just WRONG! What is really going on is that the universe is exactly the same as it's always been. Sure Galaxy's come and go but the universe is eternal and always has been.
Now to address the issue of doppler shift (Nothing is 100% efficient not even light.) So how does it lose energy? Does it slow down of course not. It shifts into a lower frequency (Energy) as it travels through space. That's where the red shift comes from. If you take a couple of doppler meausrements 1 year appart and compare them then you'll have your speed away or towards earth and you'll find that A: The earth isn't the center of the universe and B: The Universe isn't flying apart in all directions.
Silly Humans.

It's also full of grammatical errors. Hopefully it won't matter.

@ Tim Needham ;
I think it's great that you introduce the prospect of everyone complicating this subject. it's inefficient in itself. But what about greater mechanics that could influence an equilibrium in between these two, like you suggest? The universe is infinite?

i'm also not some anti science psycho, i just want to add a little perspective and see what happens :) In the end, some stuff might not matter.

@Tim

Imagine a swelling balloon. Take any two points on the surface? Are they moving away from each other?

A: Yes

Is any one of those points the center of the balloon?

A: No

Yes, the universe exists in different dimensions than a balloon, but the concept remains.

@TertiusGuy
I would love to see an Intelligent Design take on this idea.
But if I ever see Intelligent Design articles on this site I would quit reading it, and so would most of its readership.

@CodeZero
Think of a balloon with dots on it. When you blow up the balloon all the dots will farther away from each other.
None of the dots will move closer to each other.
Earth is one of those dots. Nothing is moving closer to us.
Everything moves away.

I actually just heard a speech about the double torus universe from a professor here at my university. He basically denied it's possibility with our current knowledge of quantum physics (which i'll admit in his stead isn't quite good enough) and even went as far as to provide a simple way to test whether it is true or not using our current technology coupled with a hundred times the current energy we use in a day, to test this.

It was an interesting speech and I only grasped about 15% of the technical stuff, However as a lover of math I do quite honestly enjoy the idea of a double torus as our universe's structure. Geometry really is beautiful!

@killerT

Thanks for steeling my argument...

Nice to know I have people thinking like me =D

I'm sorry if someone else has said this. There is also this possibility. The Big Bang didn't actually create space and the extent that we can see is simply accelerating in growth; the space is already there but it is finally getting filled. Also just because the expansion of space is accelerating does not mean that it will push past the speed of light, it too might be limited by the one, i think unofficial, law that nothing can go faster than light.

I have also been informed that everything isn't necessarily moving apart or at least things within substantial gravity will have an extremely reduced rate of expansion. An example is the galactic cluster that the Andromeda and Milky Way Galaxy exist in; in this cluster, which I think is called the Magellan Cluster; however I digress, the gravitational pull is strong enough to counter act the expansion of space to the point of halting and/or reversing it or at the very least slow it down.

Sorry, I find the whole article and any assumption of
even getting close to near light speed travel, ridiculous.

When we continue to use 400 year old chemical spewing
rocket technology, i.e., all the countries and companies
on the face of the planet.

------------------------------------
We can't even sustain a fusion reaction after 40 years, 20 countries, hundreds of scientist, and billions of dollars.

Man's failure to govern, live together peacefully on the
planet, cure the common cold, and destroying our planet for
a profit is our legacy.

Man is doomed to extinction but the sad part is he will probably take the rest of planet with him.

so what if it was only earth (and its solar system/ galaxy) that were moving away... unless everything all around us is moving away, and if that is true, and if everything is moving away from us, wouldn't we be near or at the center of the big bang? ( these are my legitimate questions in response to the article and comments above)

also, doesn't light have photons? ( moves in ray and particle form) so if anything isn't that a form of matter moving at the speed of light?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail

on the christianity spiel, if i remember correctly christianity is the culmination of judaism in which Jesus is the result of the Israelites being the chosen nation to bring the gospel to all nations ( this could also mean other planets aka nations on other planets or if the planet is a single nation it still applies). also if this is true then it is implied that Christians are supposed to be the ones that are "christ like" and do all that shit they are supposed to do (jesus lived like a bum/ vagrant who traveled etc.). this also implies there are almost no more christians (as tupac said "why does God need gold ceilings to talk to me?")

on creationists or intelligent design or whatever then why did this "god" make pain and suffering when he could have easily made a perfect painless world? where was the intelligence in that?

@drchuck1,

The ideas about how much energy it takes to expand the universe are from the basics of force, energy and power:

Force = mass times acceleration.
Energy = force times distance.
Power = energy divided by time.

The idea that the energy to power the expansion of the universe has to come from somewhere is from the law of conservation of energy:

The total energy in a closed system is constant.
-or-
The change in energy of a closed system is zero.

I think these equations apply whether objects are accelerated through space or if space is created in between objects.

The idea about Frequency Decay of photons is based on the idea that analog signals degrade over time and distance. Maybe this is true for all analog signals. Since photons are analog (even if they are quantized), it raises the question: Does a photon’s frequency decay too?

@CodeZero,

I think you are giving an example of red shift that is not due to the Doppler Effect, but I didn’t understand the part “then the output received would only ever decay at the same rate.” I didn’t get the water analogy either. I think you are talking about energy being lost along the way, making the photon go from a higher energy one to a lower energy one. Is that what you are saying?

I think a photon will keep its energy throughout its travel and not lose its energy to the space it is travelling through. Energy lost by one frequency will be carried by another frequency so the total energy is maintained. Considering a photon as a packet of energy, it maintains its total energy as it changes its energy distribution. It goes from sharp to dull as the frequency changes from higher to lower.

@lawsonrw,

If a photon were absorbed and then remitted, then the original photon would be replaced with a new one. There are many things that could interfere with the path of a photon. I was thinking about photons with a clear path. I don’t know if gravitational lensing has an effect on photon frequency. It seems that it can change the direction of a photon without changing the composition of it.

Thanks,
-Tony

i just love the controversy here! seriously though, i look at God as what happened and why, i look at science as how he did it.

science as we know it will never prove nor disprove God so all your arguing about is whether or not God is real, it's the same argument we've been going over now for the better part of 2000 years, so about now it's time we came to a conclusion to shut our collective traps and do something usefull. hey, i propose we go colonize mars! I'd be the first one on the ship!

to mars or bust!

I get relativity... I really do.
Well I think I do.
So check this out.

Somewhere, somehow, two "things" have to have moved in opposite directions at 2/3 rds the speed of light?

Given that speed is only relative to the observer, couldn't an observer using the other thing going in the opposite direction at 2/3rds the speed of light note that they were traveling at 1.5 the speed of light?

So two people, on two planets, in two galaxies, rotation in opposite directions. Spin is opposite. Direction is opposite... Etc, etc...

One guy gets his teleomatic 3000, looks at his pal in everything moves opposite land.... Poof... Spontaneous human combustion explained...( just kidding)

But just using particles streaming from the sun on opposite ends; with one particle being "home base" the other particle appears to be moving twice as fast.

My first post ever, so please be gentle.

Here is some more explanation about the idea of photon frequency decay:

A photon is created when an electron goes from one energy level to another. The amount of energy lost by an electron as it goes from higher energy to the lower energy is equal to the energy of the photon created from the transition.

The energy of a photon is equal to Planck’s constant times the frequency:

Ex - Ey = hv

Ex = electron’s initial energy
Ey = electron’s final energy

h = Planck’s constant.
h = 6.63 x 10^-34 J*s
h = 4.41 x 10^-15 eV*s

v = frequency [1/s]

(Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 8, Section 10 – Energy is Quantized)

When a photon is created, it has its initial frequency and energy.

E = hv

As the photon travels, the wave function splits into multiple frequencies with the total energy equal to the original energy.

E = hv = hva + hvb + hvc + …

At the instant a photon is created, the energy is focused into its original frequency. The new frequencies haven’t appeared yet, so they have no energy. New frequencies, starting from zero energy also start with zero frequency and infinite wavelength.

As the original wave declines in frequency and energy, new waves will grow in frequency and energy. The total energy will remain constant, but the energy distribution will flow from higher frequency to lower frequency.

The rate of frequency decline for the original wave, as a function of distance travelled is unknown. The rate of decline must be very small, since the measured red shift in telescope photos is on the order of nanometers of wavelength per billions of light years travelled.

What kind of experiment could test this idea?

Thanks,
-Tony

Interesting Notion, Acceleration requires a force, now instantaneous velocity... well a vacuum has no drag allowing velocity never to change therefor even a small force over a larger time would allow any object to reach unspeakable velocity's right?
suppose the real insight would be, acceleration or instantaneous velocity's? which would win in ∞ drag race?

suppose heres me thinking you could use the energy of the sun, direct it in 1 direction and give it an acceleration and see what happens

I am suprised to be the first one to point this out but the enterpise used warp drive whitch is a more space time distortion then just moveing faster than light. the battlestar galactica would have been more appropriate.

fascinating article, especially the comment “It’s like running a 5K race, but the track expands while you’re running,” Bennett says. “If it expands faster than you can run, you’ll never get where you’re going."

http://www.ecigator.com

I have a question. How can there be an observable universe with a 93 billion light year diameter when the universe is only estimated to be 14 billion year old, giving light only the ability to travel 14 billion years in any given direction if we were at the center of the universe giving a 28 billion light year diameter, and if we're not at the center then our observable universe should be even smaller, shouldn't it?

O.K. This is "Popular Science", not "popular creationism" or "popular deities". Will the religious nuts go to their own "creationism" sites and leave us science minded people alone? Maybe it makes them feel better to open the same debate over and over again, meaninglessly... Maybe this mindless banter is as meaningless as their chosen deity, and by plastering it in our sanctuary of knowledge and logic they think they can bring meaning to a useless outdated form of sickness. It seems to me that all religions are an extreme fear of death syndrome, wherein the believer is so afraid of death that they create fictitious realms and gods who will keep their "soul" from dissipating into the void. Death is a natural thing. Without death there cannot be change. get used to it.

The above comments are a BubbaGump parade. Of course these geniuses are free to comment and party. If BubbaGump was here the stones and rocks would be tossed his way. Oh what hypocrites.

What happen to staying within the confines of the article?

Whats faster than the speed of light? Darkness.... because what is there before light even gets close? darkness.... think about it.

@QuantumLeaper there was an article awhile back about scientists speculating the size of the Universe to be over 200 billion light years in size, which would demand expansion faster than the speed of light. I think we're missing someone.

@kamikazesmiley

Judaism always was, and still is, an extremely exclusive religion. Christianity was intended to be a gentile-accepting sect of Judaism. However, both Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament refer strictly to humanity, so theoretically no, they shouldn't evangelize. I will not argue your point that the spirit of Christianity has been lost (The original church was strictly communistic, interestingly enough).

We have the big bang explosion. I am fascinated with the idea we have 2 objects leaving from the center, the objects travelling in opposite direction from each other, each object traveling at the speed of light each from the center of the big bang. But relativity of each object from each other is twice the speed of light. To add to this, the article and others also say that space is stretching too. So are then the 2 objects relative to each other actually faster than twice the speed of light?

If you were on object A trying to see object B traveling the opposite direction and both traveling at the speed of light, could you even see object B? If you can't see object B, this would suggest in outer space, there are a lot more objects and are unknown to the observer.

What if objects being pulled into a black hole do not become invisible because of the gravity effects on the light itself, but actually the objects being pulled in accelerate faster than the speed of light and go out of view of our own perception.

I mean if anything did go faster than the speed of light, how would we know or even see it?

Man I cannot believe the maturity of Popsci.. I asked a simple question, and now people are bashing the Intelligent Design theory, which I don't understand how it is not science? Did I ever mention that I was a creationist, or did I say that I even believed Intelligent Design?

I asked if there was an explanation of this FOR Intelligent Design, but of course everyone instantly assumes that I am being religious and starts the whole debate. For one thing, I will say that Intelligent Design is as much science as is Evolution because they are both THEORIES. Neither have been proved wrong as of yet, although many people believe that evolution has, and there are many other that say Intelligent Design never had a leg to stand on.

I simply asked for an explanation, I asked for the masses of Popsci to actually help, which is many times the case when people don't start the religious debate. If anything asking for this explanation would make me anti-intelligent design because it would be something that couldn't be explained by it, so please stop assuming what I am trying to say, there is no need to bring God into this..

To everyone that believes in their god, eventually the people who are commenting against you will be punished, so why should you even try to talk to them here? You aren't going to be able to convert them online, so don't try.

To everyone who believes in evolution, let the "religious nuts" think what they want, this is not your site and until Popsci specifically says they don't want anyone who has a religion to read the site, don't bother trying to "correct" them because trust me, they won't be swayed.

To everyone who says they believe in Intelligent Design AND Evolution, MAKE UP YOUR MIND ALREADY, THAT IS TOTALLY HYPOCRITICAL..

Sorry I severely dislike the notion that a god would have designed evolution, because the general consensus of Intelligent Design is that the Earth is not nearly as old as what the Evolutionist believe it to be, and there are many other facts that would be completely hypocritical, if you want I'll go into them but this post is long enough already.

My last thing? Grow. Up. We are supposed to be commenting on the article, not having a religious debate.

Thanks for all the help trying to find out if there was any take on this from the ID theory's point of view, oh wait there was none.

Here is a new perspective.
To assume that anything in the universe is moving faster than the speed of light but its just because the universe itself its expanding at an accelerating rate from point zero is just assuming that maybe this “time-space shock waves” we move in are already moving faster than light for any other shock wave that has not yet reached our speed by the difference of the speed of light. The same happens to previous shock waves that are moving already at the speed of light away from us. Both horizons would be invisible for us but not for those within that range of speed. So, light speed will always be light speed and nothing faster. Space and time may expand faster (taking point zero as reference) but light within this space time shock waves will never be able to reach neither the previous shock wave nor the last. This only proves that Einstein is still right, and the speed of light, and space and time, its all relative from the point in the universe where it belongs.

Shakouhousha, your a prankster. You know this right. The class is focus towards the front and you toss a rock through the window and distract the class. As they write about their distraction, you come back and smack them in the heads for being distracted. Oh, you prankster you. lol.

WHAT ABOUT V-BANG THEORY...!!!
Is it not that it is "Time" that is stretching between us galaxies...instead of we hurling away...!!!
Guess the Day we understand this...it will be much easier.
Remember the stars are not moving away from us... only the Galaxies...!!!

I don't understand why so many people loathe the possibility that we are sitting spot on in the center of the universe?

It actually makes sense. We have many, many examples of violent explosions that leave the dead center almost untouched. Tunguska, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, all had structures at their dead center that were heat damaged but almost completely unaffected by the blast wave.

Maybe this little spot around SOL is the only place serene enough in the entire universe that can support life?

It seems the Atheistic crowd as so quick to try and "normalize us" yet they also go to great lengths to "normalize" the extremely improbable likely hood that life just appeared.

And to make matters worse, now Hawkins is mad at God because his Viagra no longer works and has come up with goofy formulas that basically "prove" 0+0=1.

Why don´t you all please stop with all the existentialist crap and focus on the main issue instead?
God?......... please.

@Shakouhousha...i tried not to bash but it is difficult when people bring concepts here that are beliefs and not science, ID is a hypothesis at best, with no supporting evidence it goes nowhere, ID was invented by christians to get around god being actually named as the designer even though they believed the designer to be god (this was done to get religion in the schools since creationism failed at that), it has since been borrowed by others inserting aliens, ect., as the designer, it is still the same belief that everything is too complex to have not been designed with no supporting evidence, hence it remains a hypothesis that goes nowhere in the main stream scienctific community until some "real" evidence emerges
@Tony_Who...dark energy explains away your issue with the conservation of energy, dark energy has a great deal of evidence to back it up (still a theory, not proven fact yet), your idea of photon decay is interesting, but once again no evidence to support it as in ID, so it is an unsupported hypothesis, i would have to think that scientists researching how light works would have thought of your idea and how to test for it, if you believe you are the first to think of this (possible, all ideas start somewhere) then pursue it or bring it to someone's attention who can
@ those suggesting two objects moving in opposite directions at the speed of light would seem to break the speed of light (if a person on one object observed the other object) are wrong, the theory of relitivity explains this, however, it is difficult for me to explain this (i am no Einstein), i get it when i read it, most of you would probably get it would also if explained by someone more capable than i, if you google the theory of relitivity there are some good sights that have easily understood explanations (and others that are quite difficult)
i hope this didn't come across as rude, i can be a bit abrasive at times, cheers

oops, relativity, told you i was no Einstein

What's faster than the speed of light?

Yes the speed of dark AND the speed of THOUGHT.

Universe is a double torus or at least has some form of geometry as it's design. No way it's a random explosion moving away in all directions for 14 billion years, yet it is 200 billion light years across...lol.

@Lricardo101 since you like math maybe you would like to take a look at this paper which explains the topology of space-time in the torus model.

http://theresonanceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/quaternions_spinors_twistors_paper.pdf

This is a worthy theory and relatively new, so not that many people have caught on yet. But in the future this will be the model of the universe; not some chaotic discharge, but beautiful symmetry.

lol @ people bringing in religion on this topic. i feel so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things which is space. since in theory everything is constantly moving than there is no way to stay absolutely still.

_________________
The people of the world only divide into two kinds, One sort with brains who hold no religion, The other with religion and no brain.

- Abu-al-Ala al-Marri

Its no wonder there are so many people out there frustrated with modern day science especially physics. There are so much outlandish statements and speculation mixed into physics now because of the vague paradoxical explanation of how physical reality works. These weird science concepts are provided to us from the many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. For instance the quote above "There is no limit to how fast the universe can expand, says physicist Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins University. Einstein’s theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum still holds true, because space itself is stretching, and space is nothing." - Think about it. How can nothing stretch? By the very definition nothing, it is non-existent, its not there. So therefore it cannot possibly stretch. Thanks to a fundamental lack of understanding our scientists make these kind of statements everyday. Its as if we are still stuck in the year 1915 with no serious advancement since Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. We have made no serious advancement in our knowledge of the fundamental operation of the Universe.

As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe. This theory states that there is also a classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativity and is located at the Super Relativity website. This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious.

As the big bang occurred and everything is speeding outwardly, some things exploding had to hit the thing in front of it and send fragments backward to the center of the cosmos.

Is there a sun in the center of the cosmos with planets circling it? This solar system would I think be the oldest solar system that congealed cosmos anywhere.

It seems for life to come into arrival on earth, earth was made up various soups of material and given a long time to stew.

Wouldn't it be great if at the center of the cosmos, exist a sun and planet with the oldest civilization of all.

@Shakouhousha @drchuck1 Before you begin to argue a broad topic, try to stop looking at a narrow portion.

Intelligent design is NOT Creationism. Creationism is unique to old age Judaism and uneducated Christians. Intelligent Design can be traced to Jews, Greeks, Hindus, Nordic Tribes, the Aztecs, etc.

Intelligent design is nothing more than the idea of some conscious intelligence being responsible for creation, whether it be just the human race or the entire universe.

It is for this very reason that the latter (though not the former) is compatible with evolution. Intelligent design, being broad, is timeless. Millions, billions of years are irrelevant in intelligent design theory/hypothesis.

Many would argue (decide for yourself the argumental value, I am impartial) that experience in life presents plenty enough data to present intelligent design as a theory, rather than a hypothesis.

I don't give a crap what side your on, who's right and who's wrong, but first learn to debate like an intellectual, lest you sound as uneducated as creations who've never picked up a biology textbook, which many here do.

@drchuck1

Thanks for your critique and encouragement. I haven’t heard of the theory of photon frequency decay before, but I won’t claim to be the first to think of it.

The evidence used to support one theory will be the same evidence used to support the other theory. The difference is in the how the evidence is understood. The more accurate theories will have equations to match the evidence and will be able to account for all of the evidence. In this case, the evidence is red shift on the order of nanometers of wavelength per billions of light years travelled as found by the Hubble telescope.

Here is a PopSci article about some people working on the fundamentals of light:
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-07/scientists-measure-speed-single-photon-determine-time-travel-be-impossible

Here is a video about some math that might apply to this subject:
It is about frequency splitting, chaos theory and the number 4.669201…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7E-EIjA2EM
See the explanation of frequency splitting, frequency ratios and the graph starting at about 5:00 in the video.

_____

The concept of the Big Bang and an expanding universe came before the Hubble Telescope. Before the telescope became operational, questions about how much the universe expands focused on three possibilities:

1) The explosion of the Big Bang was not enough to overcome gravity, so the universe will eventually collapse and create a new Big Bang (Big Bounce Theory).
2) The explosion of the Big Bang was enough to overcome gravity, so the universe will eventually dissipate into space (Big Freeze Theory).
3) The explosion of the Big Bang was just right so the universe will achieve relative stability and will not have a Big Bounce or Big Freeze.

Each of these three possibilities is based on an expanding universe with a negative acceleration due to the force of gravity.

There was much excitement about the launch of the Hubble Telescope. The equations were ready to calculate the acceleration of the universe. The Hubble telescope would provide the data needed for the calculation.

The equations to calculate the acceleration of the universe are based on these assumptions:
1) Type 1A Supernovas are all the same intensity.
2) Intensity of light decreases by the inverse square of the distance.
3) Red shift is entirely due to the Doppler Effect.

The photos from the Hubble telescope provided the data, showing red shift on the order of nanometers of wavelength per billions of light years travelled. The data was put into the equations and…Surprise! The calculations show the universe has positive acceleration!

Positive universal acceleration was not the expected result, based on accepted theory. The results appeared to violate the law of conservation of energy, because positive acceleration requires an energy input, but there was no known source for such energy or positive force. The law of conservation of energy requires that all energy forms are accounted for and the total energy remains constant. Based on the positive universal acceleration calculations, the energy equation was unbalanced and the total energy was ever increasing.

To fix the accounting error in the energy equation, the concept of Dark Energy was created. It is like overdraft protection of a checking account. If the account goes out of balance, the overdraft protection will cover it. IMO, Dark Energy is a patch for an accounting error.

Another new idea required by the theory of cosmic expansion is the creation of space between galaxies. If the universe were ever expanding with positive acceleration, then galaxies and things would eventually reach the speed of light and beyond. This violates the idea that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The idea that space is created between the galaxies fixes the problem by allowing things to move apart faster than the speed of light without having to go through space faster than the speed of light. The idea is that the distance between objects can increase without the need to the objects to move.

There are several other fantastic ideas that are the result of the theory of cosmic inflation, including the Big Rip, an Event Horizon, the Edge of the Universe and the End of Time. In the Big Rip, space will expand to the point that matter will not be able to exist. For the Event Horizon, beyond a certain distance, space will be moving away from us faster than light can travel towards us. We will not be able to receive any light beyond that distance. The edge of the universe is the boundary between the universe and the big rip. Beyond the boundary there is no matter or time.

The theory of cosmic expansion fits the data from the telescope photos, but requires several new ideas to maintain consistency with the known laws of physics. Specifically, it requires an unknown force, powered by an unknown energy of infinite reserve.

The theory of photon frequency decay fits the data from the telescope photos, and comes from a few simple ideas that are generally known to be true. Analog signals degrade over distance and time, things go from sharp to dull, entropy generally increases (energy dissipates from high frequency to low frequency).

Thanks,
-Tony

Tony_Who, you gave some really elegant and smart answers of the origins and descriptions of the cosmos and big bangs. From all the variations, from all the really smart theories, I conclude for myself, well, no one yet really knows yet.

I guess if you want to go somewhere and you have no map, you need to make a good guess at least to start your journey. So all the theories is just all we have for now.

But wow, it is good reading. Thank you.

The Big Bang theory is something of a sacred cow. If you challenge it you are considered a crackpot. However the authors of the Big Bang theory made up parts of the theory to fit the facts i.e. inflation. There is no science behind inflation - it's just made up, like a story in the Bible. So as a theory the Big Bang still sucks. Also the 'singularity' theory of the Big Bang's origin is problematic because every black hole is a singularity. Apparently singularities are as common as dirt. If singularities breed other singularities in some eternal chain of universe creation - well that answers nothing.

I suspect that the Big Bang theory, cosmic expansion, the idea that the universe is speeding up and other popular ideas will all be in the trash bin in one hundreds years from now. The Higgs boson, the darling of the last century, was just trashed. What other darlings will we dispose of?

A personal problem I always had was the idea that at the moment of the Big Bang there was a universe composed solely of incredibly hot energy which later cooled into matter, leaving the background radiation as 'proof'. My understanding is that you cannot measure heat or temperature in the absence of matter as heat and temperature are relative.

From Wiki: "Thermodynamically, energy can only be transferred as heat between objects, or regions therein, with different temperatures, as described by the zeroth law of thermodynamics. This transfer happens spontaneously only in the direction to the colder body, as per the second law of thermodynamics."

Maybe I'm an idiot but it seems you cannot have an infinitely dense, infinitely hot ball of 'energy' composed of nothing. Even the centers of the largest suns are composed of atoms. We know from the atom-bashers that energy can be converted to and from matter but there is no evidence that energy can simply exist in a matter-free superstate - and if it did it would be impossible to measure or define as hot.

The Big Bang could easily have been the Big Collapse wherein a previous Universe composed of only black holes collapses and then fills the previously existing space with the base elements of matter. There are lots and lots of great, plausible theories but the Big Bang, as flawed as it is, gets all the attention.

@Tony_Who @Paxalot Very well made, educated points. You make me happy.

Personally, I think the answer is going to be far simpler. Some random patent clerk is going to present a rejected theory that turns out to be correct, and we will later wonder, "Why didn't we think of that?"

It's amazing how far we've advanced despite so many people believing in fairy tails.

If you decide to put the biblical scripts in a blender, well I am ok with this. For you all its just second hand information and without tangible fact. But for some of us we do not even need bible or other historical facts. We just feel it. So how do I put this in scientific perspective? I and we can not put this in tang able fact.

Well, I have to first to say, you are responsible for you own life, your own perceptions and choices.

Oh did you expect more. Sorry, were adults here and you getting what you get. I am not holding the hands for you, your just closed minded, mathematical and logic in nature. This is your limits. We all have to live with our choices, yes?

In a most positive note, I wish you well!
I am very cool with chemistry and the big bang ideals. But I personally believe there is a guiding voice beyond our own perspective too. But that is me.

Here...

http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_life/calculating_odds_life_could_begin_chance

@Matt5327...really, maybe you need to learn how to comprehend what you read, i stated ID was a creationist invention that has evovled (all pun intended) into many people inserting some mythical, alien, ect., intelligence in place of the christian god; a scientific theory has so much evidence in support of it, it is believed it will not be proven wrong (of course they still can be wrong); hence ID has 0 evidence to support it so it is a hypothosis based on a belief everything is too complicated to have come about by chance or other theories put forth by science; so reread your text book and attempt to comprehend it-
@Tony_Who...you are an exceptional writer which i am not, you made many valid points and i agree that the big bang is being challenged and should be (and these challengers are not considered crackpots these days), i personally believe most of the big bang theory will remain and the problems worked out, the biggest problem is where did all the matter come from that exploded in the first place, i like the idea that there are an infinite amount of universes that occasionally bump into one another transfering tremendous amounts of energy and causing an infinate amount of big bangs across all of these universes (not all at once) as kind of a cosmic recycling process, the difficulty with this is how do we test this hypothesis? it could be correct but we would never know it, i am one who does not have a problem with not knowing, we may never know, i am ok with having no designer, it is just how things are, hope that doesn't sound too crazy, cheers

Yes, I believe Chuck Norris can move faster than light.

Moving faster than light? Relative to what? If 2 objects traveling at real lightspeed directly towards each what would be the total speed of approach observed on any of the 2? Twice the speed of light, right?

FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT

This was already answered in Popular Science on the
03/18/2010. See the following link: www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-03/computer-processes-faster-speed-light

Here is the comment repeated for the sake of convenience.

THE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF LOVE

In 1992 I attended a function at Wits University in Johannesburg, South Africa. In the foyer of the Great Hall, where the function was being held, an exhibition had been set up. The function and exhibition was organised by the Sri Sathya Sai Organisation of South Africa.

One of the exhibit pieces was titled "Science and Spirituality"

In a section of this exhibit the issues around what we today know as Quantum Entanglement, Non-locality or quantum non-local phenomenon was highlighted.

The answer to how and why a photon pair - at opposite sides of the universe - communicate instantaneously was revealed.

As previous comments have pointed out
- infinite mass
- infinite energy
are not possible in reality. (referring to original posts comments).

The answer does not reside here. It cannot be found in the hardware side of nature.

If you have an error in your spreadsheet or you cannot find a music clip on your heard drive or you cannot find a site in the first 10 pages of Google results do you out the memory chips or hard drive and check them out with a magnifying glass.

No! You have to look in the software, the operating system.

The answer to this phenomena does not lie in the hardware but rather the software, the soulware or more correctly "The Soul-Aware".

Two critical questions have to be asked to find the answer to this juicy riddle of science.

Question 1 - How does the one photon know that the state of the other one has changed across billions of light years?

Question 2 - Why does it change in sympathetic harmony?

Answer 1 - Each is constantly aware of the state of the other no matter where it is in the universe. They are both conscious of each other.

Answer 2 - They both keep in sync with each because of the fundamental unity the exists between them. THE BOND OF LOVE.

The soul or Soulware of the photon demonstrates love and consciousness. The soul of each photon is aware of the soul of the other photon. The soul of each photon is committed to keeping in harmony with the soul of it entangled or non-local twin through the bond of mutual love.

In 1992 science had finally started catching up to spiritually. Five thousand years ago the Vedas and Upanishads reveal this same truth.

The truth that God is actually LOVE and CONSCIOUSNESS.

Here are 5 spiritual terms associated with God.
1) Love
2) Light
3) Consciousness
4) Omniscient
5) Omnipresent

It is amazing to think that the light emitted from your PC or laptop screen, as you read this posting, has these 5 qualities / characteristics as an intrinsic part of its nature.

That any photon pair coming from the light or glow of your computer screen can end up being present in any part of the universe and they will never lose touch with each other.

This exhibit segment, on the campus of Wits University, was inspired by the 1964 work of John Bell.

In is very interesting that in the same year 1964 Marshal McLuhan published his seminal work titled "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man". In this book McLuhan speaks about the power of light. He famous quote regarding light is "The Medium is the Message". He used a light bulb to prove his point.

In 1967 he published a book titled "The Medium is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects".

Here is an apt quote from McLuhan to round off this posting.
"Why is it so easy to acquire the solutions of past problems and so difficult to solve current ones?"

Throwing light on LIGHT. Or, light's body travels at the speed of light but light's soul travels at infinite speed. No mass or energy required.

In the light of this are you focusing on your body or your soul? Now there's a can of worms to play with . . . How do we become Soul-Aware like the photon?

Any clues? Because this is where the heavy lifting is required. After all - light is lite.

Well, this article just further convinces me that the Big Bang was the explosion of the God-being, of which everything is a component. It has expanded, then will contract, and will become unified once more as itself. And we're all part of it.
You people crack me up with your formulas and redshifts. If you could hear how crazy it sounds...
As the author suggests, everything is about the loaf and the race.
*****
Galaxies aren’t moving through space and away from each other but with space—like raisins in a rising loaf of bread. Some galaxies are already so far away from us, and moving away so quickly, that their light will never reach Earth. “It’s like running a 5K race, but the track expands while you’re running,” Bennett says. “If it expands faster than you can run, you’ll never get where you’re going."

Many accept the Big Bang theory just as many give consent to the theory of evolution. Concerning the movement of the galaxies, at one point, Albert Einstein could not accept the thought that the universe is in motion, even though he initially included it in his theory of relativity, but then removed it. It was only when Edwin Hubble gave him convincing evidence of the galaxies moving apart at half the speed of light, discovered in 1929, that Albert Einstein recognized his greatest cosmological blunder, that the universe is not static or at rest but always on the move.

That the universe came into existence as a result of an "first explosion" is not reasonable. Something does not come from nothing and complexity does not come from a "first explosion". Harmony does not come from something exploding, but rather this creates chaos, destruction. The universe is precise, by which it can be determined long in advance where a star will be or the location of the moon, allowing such institutions as NASA to know exactly when to "lift-off" so as to reach their destination. Could this precision have come about by accident, a random "first explosion" ?

Genesis 1:1 gives a simple but logical answer to how the universe and life came into existence: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Proverbs 3:19 says that "Jehovah himself in wisdom founded the earth. He solidly fixed the heavens in discernment." Since the time of Hubble, astronomers have been trying to measure as accurately as possible the rate of expansion, referred to as the “Hubble constant.”

In 1998, researchers analyzing light from a special kind of supernova, or exploding star, found evidence that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating! At first, the scientists were skeptical, but evidence soon mounted. Naturally, they wanted to know what form of energy was causing the accelerating expansion. For one thing, it seemed to be working in opposition to gravity; and for another, it was not predicted by present theories. Appropriately, this mysterious form of energy has been named dark energy, and it may make up nearly 75 percent of the universe!

Dark energy, however, is not the only “dark” oddity discovered in recent times. Another was confirmed in the 1980’s when astronomers examined various galaxies. These galaxies, as well as our own, appeared to be spinning too fast to hold together. Evidently, then, some form of matter must be giving them the necessary gravitational cohesion. But what kind of matter? Because scientists have no idea, they have called the stuff dark matter, since it does not absorb, emit, or reflect detectable amounts of radiation. How much dark matter is out there? Calculations indicate that it could make up 22 percent or more of the mass of the universe.

According to current estimates, normal matter accounts for about 4 percent of the mass of the universe. The two big unknowns—dark matter and dark energy—appear to make up the balance. Thus, about 95 percent of the universe remains a complete mystery!

not a complete mystery, just a puzzle to be worked out or not, cheers

FUN FACTS! ;)
Religion leader and science share the same breakfast breakfast bowl, who knew.

The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. Observers determined that most "spiral nebulae" were receding from Earth, but did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, or realize that the supposed nebulae were galaxies outside our Milky Way.
Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity in 1927 and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom"—now known as the Big Bang.

Ok obviously no one here ever did the balloon experiment in middle school for the big bang theory so I will explain it.

The principle of 'everything' moving away is an over simplification. A more correct statement would be that everything is moving apart (almost everything, the Andromeda galaxy as mentioned by someone else is in such close proximity it and the milky way are going to collide due to gravitational pull but NOT due to universal expansion).
To figure out a very simple demonstration on how this works, draw three dots on a balloon and blow it up. All three dots are farther apart, now that takes care of the same 'surface' dots (galaxies), but consider the balloon in depth, if you drew dots in some 'sub surface skins' they would not expand out as fast nor away from each other as fast. SO, the same skin galaxies would be moving away from the next skin galaxies even though everything is moving outward. Likewise, dots (galaxies) on the other side of the expansion at some point will be moving at some critical speed where the RELATIVE speed between opposite axis of expansion galaxies exceeds the speed of light.

So YES the 'big bang' theory stands up to the points brought up here about the expanding universe and does NOT require the earth to be the center for everything to move further away from it.

Fascinating:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html

A question for all you people that are brighter than I.

Do Protons have weight? And if so. After billions of years of being produced by stars and pushed out into space traveling at the speed of light until it stop (no energy) could the accumulation of protons over time constitute matter? And if it does, would that not affect space and time?
We of course would never see them, just like we don't see the atoms that make up water.

@djmc993150...i explained that no matter where you are in the universe it would appear you are in the middle when actually you are not but most seem to not get it (if infinite there would be no middle)
@DylanC...protons have mass as all matter does, protons would keep moving until one of newton's laws stopped them, all mass effects spacetime, try reading; Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson
fascinating and would steer you done the right road, cheers

As the universe is expanding the elemental particles exist out of the fabric energy. The transition from PURE ENERGY to mass occurs only when the universe is accelerating. A constant mass is relative to the amount of energy in the current universe.
It is important to realize that gravity is NOT an attractive force but a REPULSIVE one. What I mean is, that we are accelerated away from the center of every particle. I call it concentric acceleration. We are constantly accelerated away from the center of our earth or any other object that we are on, or for that matter from ourselves. In the process the energy fabric is compressed around the object. It takes additional energy to overcome the hole that it creates. That is why we do not fly off the surface of the earth .
Another very important concept is that energy has no dimensions. Important, in that energy exists everywhere in the universe all at once. A photon is a transitional object in the energy fabric, so it can exist everywhere anywhere all at once. If a photon is allowed to exist in that state, it can pass through two slits and create a interference pattern. However if an observer , from the particle side, decides to observe it , it becomes a particle in the three dimensional world.
When the universe accelerates more and more, it requires more energy. In order to keep up the acceleration, particles are converted back into pure energy providing the energy to accelerate the remaining particles in the universe. When the , last particle approaches the speed of light it will reach a point where it too will be converted back into pure energy.
At this point all particles are now converted to pure energy and since energy has no dimensions, we are back to a single point where the universe starts all over again. Call me nuts if you want but ....Think it over ...

oops, down the right road...if all objects are moving away from you than you would appear to be in the middle (except gallaxies on a collision course that are caught by each others gravity or warping of spacetime), cheers

@Nigelnerd...wow, i want to smoke some of that, cheers

I have read a lot of comments here about which is correct big bang or creation. My thought is that if you prefer creation then you believe something like that one day God said make it so and the Universe became. If you believe in big bang then you believe something like there was nothing and then one day a small nothing exploded and the entire Universe became. To me both sound the same, since when God made "his" statement and the Universe became it could have started from one spot and exploded out and the entire Universe became. I don't ever remember any creationist saying that the Universe was created with all of the Stars and things in place just that God made it happen. The big bang theory does not conflict with this thought or the other way around. Who or what created the big bang?

Here is some information to explain how much energy it would take to expand the universe.

CONSERVATIVE AND NONCONSERVATIVE FORCES
“If a potential energy can be associated with a force, we call that force conservative. If a potential energy can not be associated with a force, we call that force nonconservative. The spring force and the gravitational force are conservative; the frictional force is nonconservative”

This means that with conservative forces, energy is maintained. With nonconservative forces, energy is dissipated.

“Work done on a particle by a conservative force does not depend on the path followed between those points.”

Work is energy, defined as force times distance.

What this means is that the potential energy of a system can be calculated by knowing the positions and properties of all of the objects in the system. Calculating the potential energy does not depend on how the system came to be.

(Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 8, Section 5, Conservative and Nonconservative Forces)

POTENTIAL ENERGY
The gravitational potential energy of a two-mass system is

U(r) = -GMm/r^2

U(r) = gravitational potential energy as a function of the distance
G = Gravitational constant = 6.67 x 10^-11 N*m^2/kg^2
M = Mass number 1
m = Mass number 2
r = distance (radius)

If the system contains more than two particles, the principle of superposition applies. The total gravitational potential energy is the sum of the gravitational potential energy of each pair of masses within the system.

The proof of this equation is done with calculus by integrating the gravitational force between two objects as they approach from an infinite distance. Zero gravitational potential energy at an infinite distance is chosen to make the math easier. Typically we are interested in the difference between two potential energies, which is not affected by the choice of reference for zero potential energy.

Interestingly, it takes a finite amount of energy to move things infinitely far apart.

This same equation is used to calculate escape velocities. At escape velocity, the kinetic energy of the object plus the gravitational potential energy of the object equals zero. Another way of saying this is, at escape velocity, the magnitude of the kinetic energy is equal to the magnitude of the gravitational potential energy.

(Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 15, Section 7, Gravitational Potential Energy)

KINETIC ENERGY
Kinetic energy is the energy of mass in motion.

“The change in the kinetic energy of a particle is equal to the total work done on that particle by all the forces that act on it.”

Again, work specifically means force times distance.

In classical mechanics, of speeds much slower than the speed of light,

K = (mv^2)/2

K = kinetic energy
m = mass
v = velocity

The proof of this equation is done with calculus by integrating a force on a mass through a distance.

(Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 7, Section 5, Kinetic Energy)

At relativistic speeds, where the speed is comparable to the speed of light,

K = mc^2[(1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2))-1]

K = kinetic energy
m = mass
v = velocity
c = the speed of light

I don’t know how that is derived. I hope I typed it right.

(Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd Edition, Chapter 7, Section 7, Kinetic Energy at High Speeds)

These equations hold whether things are moving through space or if space is being created between things.

The cosmic expansion theory predicts that galaxies will move infinitely far apart, because space is being created between them. Kinetic energy of the galaxies is not dependent on how much space is created between them, because the galaxies do not accelerate through space.

This will take a finite amount of energy, assuming that each galaxy has a finite mass and the number of galaxies is finite. Alternatively, if there is an infinite number of galaxies, then the energy per galaxy used in the expansion of the universe will be finite.

The energy required to expand the universe and put every galaxy infinitely far apart is the same energy required to move each galaxy through space to an infinite distance if kinetic energy is not included. The energy required to create space depends on the location, as the introduction of new space changes the potential energy of the objects around it.

If cosmic expansion is true, it takes hella energy!

Thanks,
-Tony

dude, you're givin' me a headache!

“Scientists know this because of the Doppler effect, among other reasons”

…typical pseudoscience.

Lets totally ignore the researched and proven phenomena called [1]gravitational time dilation, that more logically fits the observed red shift—shale we?

Not everything…is as it seems (or as you’re told--by ‘paid’ professionals…lol).

Read My Lips...
NO BIG BANG!

[1] Also known as the Shepiro Effect or tired light.
For short and simple explanation, see: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkFZayu4kuQ

Correction:
--shall we?
...DOH!

A recent discovery happens to coincide with the above article:

((Reuters) - An international team of scientists said on Thursday they had recorded sub-atomic particles traveling faster than light -- a finding that could overturn one of Einstein's long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe.)

If you want to read more about this discovery, just search with the above phrase. This could open a whole new field of science.

kilo
mega
giga
tera
peta
exa
zetta
yotta
hella

Thanks,
-Tony

@drchuck1 you stated to Matt5327 the he should comprehend what you read,so please correct me if I am wrong.But it would seem you did the same with his coment in that you reposted your comment to further assert your position that ID was not theory."i stated ID was a creationist invention that has evovled (all pun intended) into many people inserting some mythical, alien, ect., intelligence in place of the christian god; a scientific theory has so much evidence in support of it, it is believed it will not be proven wrong (of course they still can be wrong); hence ID has 0 evidence to support it so it is a hypothosis based on a belief everything is too complicated to have come about by chance or other theories put forth by science; so reread your text book and attempt to comprehend it-" I believe your point to be as there is no proof to back it it as not a theory but not being theory does not invalidate it.I would further assert that all hypothosis start as a belief which starts someon a path of proving it to be true by finding proof thus making it theory.I believe that Matt5327 was simply saying you should not discount a theory just because you don't believe it.I also believe he waspointing out that despite its origins it is a valid hypothosis supported by fact thus making it theory."Many would argue (decide for yourself the argumental value, I am impartial) that experience in life presents plenty enough data to present intelligent design as a theory, rather than a hypothesis." I give as example of this the device on which your wrote your comment and I mine as some intelligence
designed it aso a frther example the internet on which it travels between us as some intelligence designed it also.By theway that would not be Al Gore lol.
I would also like to point out that you seem to contradict your position in your support of Tony_Who in the same post when you stated." you made many valid points and i agree that the big bang is being challenged and should be (and these challengers are not considered crackpots these days), i personally believe most of the big bang theory will remain and the problems worked out, the biggest problem is where did all the matter come from that exploded in the first place, i like the idea that there are an infinite amount of universes that occasionally bump into one another transfering tremendous amounts of energy and causing an infinate amount of big bangs across all of these universes (not all at once) as kind of a cosmic recycling process, the difficulty with this is how do we test this hypothesis? it could be correct but we would never know it, i am one who does not have a problem with not knowing, we may never know, i am ok with having no designer, it is just how things are, hope that doesn't sound too crazy, cheers" I ask why not hold the same to the possibilty of there being a designer.Also in this comment;"09/22/11 at 2:31 pm
not a complete mystery, just a puzzle to be worked out or not, cheers" Are you supporting the possibilty of the existence of dark energy and dark matter without proof simply based on the belief of some scientist that there has to be more because the accpeted theory does not account for all of what has been observed.That sounds alot like what those who have co-opted ID for their ow purposes belive and say there has to be more than this.

So Who lit the Big Bang? Who pushed the first domino? Has to have been something or someone outside time and space.

It is impossible to have an infinite series of dependent events.

All mankind descended from a single woman who lived 200,000 years ago, according to a genetic study.

"Mitochondrial Eve" Confirmed: 200,000 Years Old - Rice University.

google eve 200,000 years

Event the Pope believes in evolution.

Creationism - 7 days? Guess they never looked at the Grand Canyon. Just a few more layers than could be formed in 7 days.

Intelligent design? Where is the scientific evidence?

The thing is that we (Milky Way/ Earth) are moving away from the other galaxies at the same time. SOOO, the speed at which they are moving is only half as fast as it appears to be. The expanse is not reaching the speed of light, it is reaching the speed of time.

The very edge of the universe cannot be seen, not because it is moving away so fast, but because it is so far away that there isnt enough time for the light to reach the Earth. And there never will be, unless we stop moving.

@CodeZero - Re your comment: 'Space is not "nothing" Nor is it a true vacuum. We need to stop and redefine "Space" using a centries old definition is counter productive. We have found that "Space"... the area between everything, is actually "Space-Time" and actually acts very fabric like.'

I agree that the author has misrepresented space when he said 'Space is nothing.'

This is how I understand the hypothesis:

What we call 'outer space' I prefer to think of as 'aether' as an homage its original Homeric concept. As you suggest, space is filled with a topological medium very like a stretchy mufti-dimensional 'fabric'. Everything outside the fabric medium is void. The fabric itself is expanding outward in an attempt to fill the entire void. But the void is unmeasurable - no up, down, time, etc. Neither infinite nor not infinite. In the same way that sound can only travel so fast through certain media like solid, liquid or gas, perhaps light can only travel so fast through space-time or aether. Maybe aether itself may be like water in its attempt to fill an unmeasurable void.

Perhaps there is nothing in the unmeasurable void to stop aether itself from traveling faster than light where the aether bounds on true void. If the fabric of space-time accelerates out in all directions in an attempt to fill the true void, what's to stop the void boundary from expanding - accelerating - to faster than light speeds? Concurrently, the aether inside the expanding bubble of space-time fabric is expressed outward in all directions, decreasing the density between the finite number of relative reference points or states. (Since, of course the amount of matter and energy are finite, so too should be the space-time fabric - aether - reference points or states.) Indeed, perhaps aether began extremely early expanding faster than light just to allow the big bang to even manifest.

Like the big bang, at some point in the future of this universe, the density of the reference states that allow physics to manifest might drift so far from each other that physics and even life as we know it could no longer function because the topological medium of aether in which they are embedded is stretched too thin. Molecules fly apart from each other as the medium in which the are defined is ripped asunder. The big rip should happen in the blink of an eye at the very end, just like the big bang, like a soap bubble popping. And of course this begs the question of what kind of physics is in play currently at the boundary between aether and void. Is there some quality in the fabric of space-time that would cause it not to expand indefinitely, or is it destined to do so?

@Tony_who - "Re your comment: A simpler explanation is that the red shift is not entirely due to the Doppler Effect. The red shift is the result of the Doppler Effect and Frequency Decay. "

I like the concept that there may be degradation as the vector increases, but it seems more likely that amplitude would decrease rather than frequency, wouldn't it? Do we have a way to measure frequency decay of light? Is it possible that different densities of aether could cause frequency decay similar to diffraction of light through atom-based media? Is there a way to measure the density of far regions of aether compared to local?

AMW99...science does not consider ID a theory but a belief with no supporting evidence (yes you can find a few scientists that disagree but the vast majority don't consider ID science), dark energy and dark matter have evidence to back them up, not so much dark energy, cheers

@gr33nman

Because energy is quantized, the amplitude of a photon is a function of its frequency.

The energy is calculated with the equation E=hv.

Maxwell’s Equations show how the energy distribution oscillates between electric and magnetic fields as a function of time. The peak electric or magnetic field can be calculated with this equation.

We often think of choosing a frequency and turning up the volume. Since energy is quantized, the volume has to be an integer. When the volume becomes sufficiently large, it appears to be a continuous analog function.

Thanks,
-Tony

Quoting lucky:
"Intelligent design? Where is the scientific evidence?"

This statement/question never ceases to amaze me...

That's like someone standing in the middle of a huge technology expo, and asking the question: where is the scientific evidence that this stuff is intelligently designed (I will have to concede, much of it is not intelligently designed...sad)? When all they would have to do, is take their head out of their **s. Then again, they could just have an IQ below 40...my bad.
This stuff that's all around us, that we call life, screams--in your face ...INTELLIGENT DESIGN!
It's nano & macro technology, that puts anything man has created to-date, in the so called stone-age category--in comparison.

www.metacafe.com/watch/4261990/molecular_machine_nuclear_pore_complex_stephen_c_meyer/

www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630/bacterial_flagellum_a_sheer_wonder_of_intelligent_design/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZWogMz1x-M

...Pff!!

Nothing new about this - just another mistake made at CERN (one of many, over the years). Here are a few of them:

Muon-muon resonance (mid 1960's?) - Wrong!

Split A2 meson (1965)- Wrong!

Rising cross-sections at the ISR (Rubbia 1973) - Wrong!

Discovery of Top Quark (Rubbia 1984, p-bar-p collider) - Wrong!

Notice the Italian connection (3/4 I think).

Dr Geoff Grayer
(Retired Particle Physicist)

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf

Hey look! A primary-source document on the internet!

(its the paper discussing faster-then-light neutrinos)

55rebel - nothing screams ID in my face. Just because there must be a Creator of the Big Bang, outside time and space, does not mean the ID theory is involved at all. Nor does it mean it was done in seven days. Nor does it imply that religion must be opposed to science.
20% of journalists are religious
80% of scientists are religious

@55rebel

""Intelligent design? Where is the scientific evidence?"
This statement/question never ceases to amaze me...

That's like someone standing in the middle of a huge technology expo, and asking the question: where is the scientific evidence that this stuff is intelligently designed (I will have to concede, much of it is not intelligently designed...sad)? When all they would have to do, is take their head out of their **s. Then again, they could just have an IQ below 40...my bad."

So, because someone requires evidence to such intricate theories as intelligent design, you call them stupid? I'd say that's actually the opposite. At least they are expressing curiosity into the subject rather than assuming the whole process product of intelligent design.

--

"This stuff that's all around us, that we call life, screams--in your face ...INTELLIGENT DESIGN!"

So, because you don't understand physics and biology, you're going to claim that this is the result of something that has even less evidence than physics and biology and defies everything we know to be TRUE?

Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is the best. When applied to the construction of theories explaining a phenomenon in the event that competing hypotheses provide contradictory explanations, the one that uses the least theoretical assumptions is probably the more accurate. If a detective is reconstructing the facts of a murder, the "theory" of the crime will be the one that best fits the facts and is usually the simplest hypothesis. This principle agrees with the philosophy of science’s understanding that nature’s character is simple.

--

"It's nano & macro technology, that puts anything man has created to-date, in the so called stone-age category--in comparison."

Intelligent design is the product of human imagination, technology is the product of human innovation. It's the only thing that pushes us forward. Some of us believe this life is all we have and knowledge and improving that life are that matters.

@lucky

"80% of scientists are religious"

I'd like to see the evidence for this statistic.

Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/harris06/harris06_index.html

Skateboards can do way more tricks than Occam’s scooter. The more complex tricks are more difficult, but still obey the laws of physics.

Thanks,
-Tony

http://fff.to/VtR
http://fff.to/VtR
http://fff.to/VtR
http://fff.to/VtR
http://fff.to/VtR
http://fff.to/VtR
http://fff.to/VtR
http://fff.to/VtR

Lets see...what moves faster than light, mp?

The speed of the imagination
The speed of hope
The speed of dreams
The speed of wishes
The speed of suppression
The speed of denial
The speed of accusation
The speed of blame

and as Ron White once said, "The speed of smell..."

Will we some day have the ability to move faster than light? I surely hope so. With any luck, the team at CERN will get the proof that their results are, in fact, correct and that neutrinos are able to do this. Look how quickly we, as a species, developed after we discovered our faces wouldn't melt off at speeds above 55mph? Look at what we accomplished after the speed of sound was breached...another speed limit that was touted as unreachable and unatainable.

If Einstein's limit for c turns out to be another barrier for us to cross and expand on, think where we will be 100 yrs or so from now?

So...keep the Faith (in science), keep looking up, and keep wishing. You never know...someday soon it just might happen.

I didn’t intend to disrespect Mr. Occam, or anyone else for citing Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor is used to show preference for a simple theory over a more complex one. The imagery of a razor used as a weapon to cut something down, or an edge so sharp that it can cut anything into tiny pieces is used to cast doubt on a theory. It is a counterpoint to a theory that appears to be too complex.

Occam’s razor really can’t bust a theory, it can only cast doubt. To bust a theory, a person must show how the theory violates one of the basic laws.

The imagery of a Razor scooter used as a toy by a 5-year old also comes up when Occam’s razor is mentioned. The kids are just learning their balance and have such a great time. It’s not so hard to ride as a skateboard or a bike, so they can learn it easy without getting hurt. They are so cute and get speed wobbles at walking speed because of their short wheelbase. There are some scooter kids that can do some amazing tricks like tail whips and back flips, but there aren’t many advanced tricks beyond that. Most scooter kids abandon their scooters before they become teenagers because the scooter is too small and limited in its capability.

Here is an explanation for the metaphor of the scooter and the skateboard:

The scooter is a simple theory (Preferred by Occam’s razor).

The skateboard is a more complex theory, but not too much more complex.

A trick is an event or a phenomenon explained by the theory.

A scooter can get around and do some tricks. It can do some good tricks, but there are only so many tricks it can do.

A skateboard can get around and do and do tricks too. The number of tricks that a skateboard can do is very large, based on the number of basic tricks and the combinations and permutations of them. In this way, a skateboard has way more capability than a scooter.

In the metaphor, a slightly more complex theory can explain way more phenomenon.

The simpler theory can not explain certain things.

There are certain tricks that a scooter is simply not capable of.

When the simple theory is not sufficient to explain a phenomenon, a more complex theory is required. (Counterpoint to Occam’s razor).

Thanks,
-Tony

Extremely Sorry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeF15YuKzTg

Thanks,
-Tony

@Tony

"I didn’t intend to disrespect Mr. Occam, or anyone else for citing Occam’s razor."

No worries.

--

"Occam’s razor really can’t bust a theory, it can only cast doubt. To bust a theory, a person must show how the theory violates one of the basic laws."

I think of it more as cutting out the unexplained matters that would interlace with explainable ones.

To better define Occam's razor we can look at a likely derivative, Parsimony.

Parsimony is a scientific rule that states that if there exists two answers to a problem or a question, and if, for one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended in order to allow it to be true, and for the other answer to be true no such accommodation need be made, then the simpler of the two answers is much more likely to be correct.

http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/misc/parsimony.htm
2nd PRG
---

As for your scooter and skateboard theory, I'm not sure I understand it 100%. Maybe I need to just re-read it a couple times. However, with my current understanding. We can't use them metaphorically because they are designed for different reasons. Two different vehicles, two different worlds, two different sets of limits.

Thanks for letting me know about the meaning of parsimony.

“Put a simpler way, parsimony is "a principle that states that the simplest explanation that explains the greatest number of observations is preferred to more complex explanations"

It appears that phylogenetic taxonomists have a lot of information to organize.

---

The best theories are the simplest and most capable.

Sometimes a simple theory only works in a specific case, or only within a limited range. For example, the simple equation for kinetic energy only works when the speeds are much lower than the speed of light. At low speeds, the relative effects are negligible, so they don’t need to be included in the equation. For speeds comparable to the speed of light, the relative effects become significant and need to be included in the equation. The simple equation only works within a limited range, so it has less capability. The more complex equation can cover the entire range.

Scientific American recently posted a good article about this subject:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ghosts-aliens-quantum-gravity

---

In the metaphor of the skateboard and the scooter, which vehicle can do the most complex tricks and maintain control on the Mega Ramp?

The simplest theory (the scooter) can barely make it over the jump. A slightly more complex theory (the skateboard) can do the most tricks. See Bob’s video part in “Extremely Sorry.” A more complex theory (see the next video) will not be able to do better tricks on the Mega Ramp.

See all kinds of things jump the Mega Ramp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyYlUcbGJIE&NR=1

Of all the vehicles, which one has the best combination of simplicity and capability?

In our search for the best theory, which one has the least assumptions and can explain the most?

Thanks,
-Tony

Everything is just a projection of Mind

It's not the neutrinos that are here the problem, but the beliefs. When will we see we are in our own way and it is our limiting beliefs we are confronting with science and not the nature of anything (particles) out there. Now has to be asked what faster than the speed of light (C) really means in real life terms.... People -ready or not- a paradigm shift is dawning on us.

E=mc2 has been disproved.

They can't believe it. They can't believe it.

"Einstein's special relativity theory that says energy equals mass times the speed of light squared underlies "pretty much everything in modern physics," said John Ellis, a theoretical physicist at CERN who was not involved in the experiment. "It has worked perfectly up until now." " (quote from the article).

The bedrock of the western belief system called science has been toppled. The men in white coats are the scientific version of the men in black, guarding the doors of the matrix or illusion who can't believe the most fundamental axiom of their church has proven to be just that: an erroneous belief. Yet the whole enterprise of science rests on this lie.

Ok let me tell you what this MEANS, in real time and real life terms. The particle is the individual. in parallel with this core belief of the limitations of the particle (that it can't travel beyond the speed of light) our belief regarding the individual was that the individual is bound to the limitations of space and time. And thus that we (for instance read thought, but also us physically) can't travel beyond the limitations of space and time and causality. Via Science we are unconsciously studying ourselves. Without knowing it the sub atomic particle in the particle accelerator is a projection of ourselves. Something huge is happening here. Cause we are here tacitly seeing that we are not bound to space time limitations. Let me put is clearer, that we are wired to non finite time. We are waking up here to the revelation that we are eternal, but have been caught in a belief system that we are temporal. Everything is poised for the caterpillar to realize it isn't a worm... In depth psychology by touching the shadow we have found already that we hook up to this nature of the self in terms of the Self (capital S), which I call the miracle maker. To navigate this new landscape of infinite possibilities we need the Self.

Physics is slowly coming around to depth psychology. What they are now finding as parallel universes are multiple selves or identities. Even what we in jungian psychology call Self (the archetype) is also hooked up to a real world out/in t/here, as Self, at a photonic level. This is the chance for science to get right. As almost happened with Jung and Nobel physics Pauli (1950s), jungian psychology needs to be adopted as the general European psychology and the new physics and jungian psychology needs to form ASAP a strategic alliance. There's a huge chance here to get out of the Cartesian split of psyche & matter, which is at this point the root of all problems...

This is a Jungian/P.K Dick/ Gnostic Universe and a paradigm shift is happening whether you are ready for it or not, subject/object is a illusion.

Reality 90% illusion 10% confusion.
Albert Einstein

Hello World, first congradulations to the people at Cern. but why would Swiss Scientist want to divulge such profound German Science? as I have said before this doesnot belong in the public World forum. and there is no need to repeat the experiment since it is certainly valid. it agrees with observations of faster than light Galaxies. so congradulations to the people at Cern. as to the assumption that nothing can be faster than light. once you have made the assumption it is difficult to retract your assumption. and such was Einsteins assumption. so in this instance General Relativity appears to contradict Special Relativity. but we ask all German Scientist to speak no further of such things in a world wide forum, please cease and desist. sincerely Fezzy Bear

@Tony

In example, M-Theory, though extremely complex, would be supported by occams razor. Though complex, it's simplifying a much larger scale equation and integrating all of the forces of the universe. It still obeys the laws of physics. It's just an attempt at explaining everything by integrating it all.

“In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified.”

“Before 1994 there were five known consistent superstring theories (henceforth referred to as string theories), which were given the names Type I string theory, Type IIA string theory, Type IIB string theory, heterotic SO(32) (the HO string) theory, and heterotic E8×E8 (the HE string) theory. The five theories all share essential features that relate them to the name of string theory. Each theory is fundamentally based on vibrating, one-dimensional strings at approximately the length of the Planck length. Calculations have also shown that each theory requires more than the normal four spacetime dimensions (although all extra dimensions are in fact spatial).”

(Wikipedia, M-Theory)

The math of string theory is beyond me, so I don’t know.

---

Here is my guess about what space is made of.

Space is quantized and made of individual space elements. Each element has the following dimensions:
x
y
z
i (imaginary component of the x-axis, making an x-i plane)
j (imaginary component of the y-axis, making a y-j plane)
k (imaginary component of the z-axis, making a z-k plane)
electric (can hold electric potential energy)
magnetic (can hold magnetic potential energy)
nuclear strong force (can hold nuclear strong potential energy)
nuclear weak force (can hold nuclear weak potential energy)
quantum length (determines the size of the space element)
time

When a very large number of space elements combine, it makes a material that is like a fluid or solid. The properties of space are the properties of this material, based on its space elements.

The ijk dimensions make complex numbers and are responsible for some of the oscillations that are observed. These could also be considered the “hidden dimensions.”

Light is a vibration of electric and magnetic energies within the material. The speed of light comes from the stiffness of space relative to electric and magnetic fields.

Matter is made of light as it is also made from the vibrations of space. The difference between light and matter is that light is a propagating wave, while matter is a standing wave.

The reason why matter can’t go faster than the speed of light is because it is made of light. The idea of matter going faster than the speed of light is like the idea of a hurricane moving faster than the speed of sound. It can’t go faster than the speed of what it is made of.

The fundamental xyz directions of space are not necessarily orthogonal, but have to be non-co-linear. It takes three coordinates to identify a location in space.

The structure of the space material comes from the properties of the space elements and how they interact. The structure is similar to crystals in the way that the space elements pack together with repeating patterns. Because the space elements have properties with complex numbers, fractal patterns appear. The space material may even have phase transitions where the crystal structure is broken and then space becomes more like a fluid.

Here is a video that shows a schematic representation of the fractal patterns of space:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jThR6n8lZ8&feature=related

The smallest scale of the pattern is the Planck Length. The pattern repeats for as much space as there is. An equivalent schematic would be if the corners of each tetrahedron were the centers of spheres. Where the corners of the tetrahedron meet represents tangent points of the spheres. The shape of space and space elements is not something that can actually be seen. The shape of space is just a visual representation of the math that describes its properties.

This is just a guess, so it is probably wrong.

---

Sometimes science is like a flutag of ideas. People come up with whatever idea they can, and see if it flies. Is there a name for that method? Is it really science?

Thanks,
-Tony

Oops, I spelled it wrong.

Flugtag:

See all kinds of crazy flying machines fail:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh8rgVMU4EQ

Thanks,
-Tony

If you read every comment on this article, you are a nerd. I'm sorry.

just a random thought i had while reading this article:
if particle a is moving faster than the speed of light as observed by particle b but is traveling along a similiar vector to particle c then is it really moving faster than the speed of light? basicaly what im trying to say is: it is not possible to move faster than the speed of light because by some one elses perspective youre going to be moving slower.
not sure if that made much sense but i think you will get my meaning

Are we so naive to think that we know it all. In the grand scheme of things it really wasn't that long ago that we thought the world was flat. So, now we know that the universe is 14 billion years old, Really! Why don't we just say, "at this time we believe that the universe is xx years old and at this time we believe..." To make grand assumptions and call them truths slows or even halts exploratory thought and experimenting. It puts up a wall that generations to come will need to climb over to get to the actual facts.
I recall taking a test in elementary school, and one of the questions was,"How many moons does Jupiter have?" How often has that "FACT" changed over the years?

@Tumms

That was the point that I made in my first comment those many cycles ago. lol

--
"The person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew, the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago everybody knew, the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago you knew we were alone in this universe. Imagine what you know, tomorrow." -- Tommy Lee Jones, 'Agent K', Men In Black 1997

well this has gone way too deep for my averge mind, so i will just rely on "the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" for my answers. lol

@Tony

They come up with any idea they can, based off of known physical and mathematical principals, it isn't just random, in attempt to explain observed phenomena.

It isn't pseudoscience, it's science.

@Tumms

Nobody is claiming truth to the time of the galaxies existence or any unknown existence for that matter. However, because of our current universal understandings we can make far better estimates than they once did when the scientific method wasn't even a factor.

the speed of thought

Our entire universe exists in the event horizon of a superhumongousgiganticbehomoth black hole. There is no "out" only "in".

Yes there is no problem for anything to travel with any speed. Please read my Article. Theory of no speed Limit. http://www.cosmoscientists.com/nlst.htm

Umm space is not nothing. Space is time and time space is warped by mass you cant warp nothing so space has to be something.