Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Also b/c the big bang is just empty space or vaccum it can expand at FTL b/c there is no matter that is achieving FTL. No object is ever achieving FTL. Nothing moves faster than the speed of light but depending on perspective in the universe they can appear to. But be sure that nothing does. We haven't found any matter yet that breaks this speed limit. Now in quantum terms everything starts to break down quickly and this is where our standard model starts to fall apart or not apply at all. We also do not understand gravity or mass and/or what particle causes these to occur. If we did then theoretically we could 'fool' the universe into thinking an object had zero mass and we could then at least achieve the speed of light but never beyond it. Since light has no mass and it travels at C then it serves to reason that C is the speed limit of the universe, else light would travel faster than C.
It is incorrect to think of galaxies moving in terms of motion in world space between our frame of reference and its frame of reference. Rather one should think about space being 'added' or 'expanded' between us and the galaxy. Rather than the galaxy 'moving' away from us it is expanding away from us. This means that relative velocity between us might indeed be zero and yet appears to be FTL b/c the space between us is expanding FTL. But it's not. Space is actually being 'added' between us and is expanding which is creating the illusion of world motion. We actually have no way of knowing if we are actually moving through world space relative to one another b/c we, too, are being expanded away from other celestial bodies and galaxies.
It's possible you would start seeing stuff from a different point in time or that given that all your 'energy' Is invested in motion that you would have none to allocate to the passage of time and everything would appear frozen as arguably time ceases to have meaning when you travel at that speed.
Behind you you'd see nothing, as no photons could ever catch up to you for you to observe them.
This...
... is incorrect. The speed of light is finite. The observation of it is what is always relative. Moving toward the source: blueshift. Moving away from the source: redshift. How fast one is traveling relative to that light, and in what direction, matters very much. It is the very thing responsible for the blue or red shift. Greater velocity towards: more extreme blueshift. Greater velocity away: more exteme redshift.
Imagine if 200 years ago you turned around and told someone that, in the not too distant future we'd be sticking 300 people in a metal tube with wings, and it would fly half way around the world in a few hours; just so people could go on holdiday in a different country for 2 weeks... You'd have been told it was impossible, called an imbecile/idiot, and quite likely been locked up and tortured for being ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ crazy.
20 years ago, having a video phone was the stuff of science fiction. Take a look at your mobile phone. Having a mobile phone that could fit into a pocket was almost inconceivable. Now imagine trying to tell someone with a "mobile" phone from the 80s that we'd be able to fit their phone into something not much bigger than a credit card, but it wouldn't just be a phone. It would have video conferencing capability, you'd use it to organise your entire life, store your entire music collection, share news articles with friends, keep track of the weather, and you'd be doing all this by touching a glass screen... You'd be back to the realms of 200 years ago trying to describe passenger jets to people. You'd be considered a lunatic. We've had that tech for a good few years already now, so much so that most of us barely even use it to it's full potential... We already take for granted "space age" tech, historically the stuff of science fiction.
Around 10 years ago scientists began finding evidence that the "universal laws of physics" weren't in fact universal at all... They found evidence that one of the "constants" of nature, is not actually constant and differs in various parts of the universe. This goes against Einstein's equivalence princicple, which along with the theory of relativity had itself previously overruled the idea that's now looking like it might in fact be true.
That's the beauty of science: even absolutes are not actually absolute, they're always open to new evidence. Theories that are widely accepted as fact, could be proved wrong tomorrow. In 50 years people will laugh at us for things we believe to be true now. On the other hand "crazy" theories that everybody has dismissed as lunacy could end up being proven to be true.
So just because something is impossible for us to do now, or just because it's "science fiction"; don't assume that it will always be like that. Some of those impossible things will become possible, maybe even taken for granted. Some of those cool gadgets you've seen on a scifi program/movie that could "never exist" in real life, might be in your hands in the next 10 years.
Now, if going faster than light were to actually reverse time for the traveler, they still wouldn't perceive anything during their travels; it is doubtful their brains would even work during this process, and uncertain they could survive it (we're not talking about actions being reversed, we're talking about things like the decay of subatomic particles being reversed.)
People seem to forget what the "relativity" part of the theory actually refers to. It is the *meausurement* of time that is relative, *not* time itself.
Take the so-called "twin paradox". This theory holds that two twins, each with synchronized clocks, would experience time differently. One travels away from the other, approaching the speed of light. The theory says that the traveling twin's experience of time would slow, the faster he went.
B.S.
It is only the measurement that would change, and that only from the p.o.v. of the observer twin back on earth. The twin traveling would experience the exact same local time he always had. So would the one on earth. But to the one on earth, the space-twin's clock would *appear* to tick slower, i.e. its wavelength would be *redshifted*.
On the return journey the opposite would hold. The space-twin's clock would *appear* to tick faster, i.e. it would be blueshifted. But in no way would the twin in space have aged at any different rate. He would go the same distance out as in, and however long it took one way it would take the same time the other way, and once reunited the twins would be just what they always were: the same exact age.
The relativity *only* refers to the *observation or measurement* of light, NOT to the light itself. Light cannot be treated like any other object. It is *always* local light that we measure. It has to be, else it wouldn't be here for us to measure. We cannot measure light at a distance.
To "go backwards in time" is akin to saying one knows how, or can imagine how, to *unmeasure a thing*. If you can imagine how to UNmeasure something you have quite the imagination. Time IS measurement. All time is distance, one way or another. Without distance it is meaningless, and how can you unmeasure a distance?
Tell that to Einstein and Maxwell would ya, they asserted and accepted that c is a constant. c is calculated based on 2 constants themselves which are not dependant on the motion of an observer (permativity and permability). If you are saying c is not a constant then you are saying they are not constant either.......Nope. This is how physics makes sense when you look at all inertial frames.
It's also why a transmitter works when in motion.