Creationist Fanatics

A couple of posts ago you were saying that the whole planet was travelling *faster* than light. So which is it?

My truisms are endorsed by Einstein and the majority of the world's scientists. You only need to read a few websites to see that you are either very wrong or you are misusing terms so that I think you are very wrong.
Case in point:

No it does not mean that we are slowing down. Regardless of whether we are slowing down, speeding up, not moving the light from these events would be catching up with us since we are travelling at below light speed.

The light still travels at the same speed regardless of the speed of the earth and the star the light is from. All that happens is the light undergoes a doppler shift and time dilation shift.
Being able to see into the past is not dependent on speed, it is not the reason we can see quasars and it certainly doesn't prove we're slowing down. As I said above, if you look at your hand you see into the past and last time I checked my hand wasn't slowing down relative to my head.

Here:

To me it looks like these 2 sentences are related as one directly follows the other. If you are starting a new train of thought while still talking about the same concepts you should indicate that otherwise it is very misleading.

As Blinky said, the concept is what is important.
I didn't think it was necessary to actually state that in my earlier post. My point is regardless of what you look at, regardless of how fast you are moving, you are always looking back in time. I thought I covered it by saying "The further away you look the farther back in time you are seeing. "

 

why are we debating smart people stuff again? first railguns, now astrophysics. what is it with you people?

 

Because we must pretend we are smart.
---
If we were travelling faster than light, we would experience heavy blue- and red shifts (to the extent that half of our sky would be black, the other would be glowing due to the Meissner effect, or "light boom"). (Not to mention the elongated, needle-like shape, and the collisions with space debris)

The speed the light takes from our hand to reach our head is insignificant compared to the delays in the brain, including the parts responsible to extract object information from the percepted visual data

Also, because we don't experience heavy delays, we can conclude the light don't need to cache up to our speed, so we are not moving at a speed comparable to light speed.
---
Is it possible to see back to the age of Big Bang, or there are some barriers preventing this?

 

The fact that it never happened.

 

Besides any creationist (non-scientific) workaround.

Edit:
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation?
Red shifts?

Edit2:
I have an idea:
Distant galaxies has more red shift in their spectrum than near ones. Does this mean they are moving faster? Or only compared to us?
If yes, they can't move faster than light, so there must be a limit on their distance, so the universe is not infinite.

 

OK. I'll work on this post from the bottom up. I knew what you were saying, but what I was saying is that if an object is so close to your eyes that light only has to travel 30 cm, the time differential doesn't matter. And, technically, a person's head DOES have a different relative time from their hand. You demonstrated it in reverse, though. As stated by Einstein, the more dense or massive an object (or both) the greater it distorts time and light. So, light DOES move more slowly depending on where it is in space. The time dilation and doppler shift happen for a reason; while the light will reach us at the same time, it's going through a certain acceleration or slowdown, depending on where it came from, or what it passes. And, to answer your question of "Were you starting a new train of thought while talking about the same concepts?" Yes.
And, the past is indeed catching up with us. We would have seen it sooner if we weren't moving so fast, and now we're slowing down. Well, we probably would've seen it sooner if we had awesome telescopes like we have now. But, we are slowing down, and you should look that up. Alright, the whole "we're moving faster than light" argument. During the big bang, matter and energy of every type was sent trillions of miles out from a single point. After all that happened, the universe was a big, glowing opaque mass of death. It expanded some more, and a few billion years later, after a great deal of decceleration, stars, planets and galaxies were formed. However, they were still moving faster than light. How do I know this? If it wasn't the case, the earth may never have come into being, the wave of heat, radiation, and light blasting it into so much confetti(The same wave of heat from when the universe glowed like a 3,000 watt bulb). Now, we've slowed down to such a point as to be able to see the universe as it wa just a few billion years after it was "born." However, we're far enough from the centerof the universe to be safe from the more hazardous energies (they've dispersed). Now, if you REALLY want me to, I'll go read ANOTHER book on physics and stars and see what's in there now. I'm starting ot think theinformation I have is dated, since the INTERNET says I'm wrong. Using websites as references? That's a GREAT way to find new info. All of what I've been saying is paraphrasing from popular books on physics, space, and the like, written by such men of mighty brainpower as Stephen Hawking, and some russian guy I can't be arsed into looking up the name for.

 

Redshifts have nothing to do with velocity. It has to do with Einstein's constant and space dialation. Einstein predicted a force (I'm going to call it a force since I'm not sure of a more precise term for it. Suffice to say it isn't a force but I don't have an expansive enough vocabulary to express it another way) that acts as a mitigator for gravity. This force combines with a natural property of space that makes it expand. This makes all nonpopulated points travel away from each other simultaneously.

The reason I say nonpopulated is because the nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and the force of gravity are all too overpowering in areas of concentrated matter, like our bodies or even the spacial regions within a solar system. This force can really only be seen on an intergalactic level, it was first observed by Hubble. Hence redshifts have nothing to do with us going any speed, merely the empty space in between stars and galaxy superclusters becoming larger and duplicating the doppler effect on photons.

 

That makes MUCH more sense than what I said. I thought red and blue shifts were due to the speed of the observer, either moving away from or toward the object being observed.
EDIT!
WAIT! Now I remember. The shift isn't velocity, it's wavelength. I get those confused way too often. However, there would be no compression or stretching if there was no difference in speed.

 

The difference in speed is illusory. What is the effect of a difference of speed? The light takes more or less time to travel from point A to B than it's standard velocity would indicate, usually because the object emiting the light has an initial velocity either toward or away from the object. Away creates a redshift, toward creates a blueshift. This relative velocity alters the light's travel time and changes the wavelength.

However if a photon is emited, and the very space between the photon and its destination thereafter changes, either increasing or decreasing, a red or blueshift would also occur, for the reason that the light is arriving at the destination more rapidly, or less rapidly, than it "should." In reality, distances don't compress, therefore you don't see galaxies blueshifting. However, distances do expand, and thus light has more distance to travel than it did a second earlier, and it expands. Wavelength increases, meaning more the light is more towards the red end of the spectrum than before.

Hence, redshift.

 

Gross at no point did I say that we aren't slowing down. You seem to be fixating on this. My point is, and always has been, that seeing into the past is not dependent on slowing down.

But I give up trying to debate the science point for point. If you can make such mistakes with the basics of red / blue shift then there is no point arguing with you over the more complicated ideas. Blinky seems to have taken up the baton anyway.

You're telling me you read a book so this makes you an expert? However THE caps PROBABLY aren't NEEDED.

I think you'll find it's the greatest information tool that has ever existed. So yes you are correct.

"Paraphrasing" and physics aren't the best of friends.
You read this big physics book all the way through but you can't remember the author's name?

 

I didn't say I was an expert in anything, but a book is way more reliable than the internet when it comes to learning things, and Russian names are hard for me to remember. Besides, it was a mistake, it's not like I never knew it. I'm sure you've made mistakes before. I'm just the kind of person that takes mistakes too far. And, the caps are necessary if I don't feel like either underlining or italicizing . You can debate point for point on anything you want, I just happen to be very stubborn and I'm slow to accept other people's ideas. I accept that you're right and I need to look into new sources, but from what you said, it seemed like you were debating whether or not we're slowing down along with the whole looking into the past. What I'm trying to say with it is, slowing down makes it easier to see the past in space. How's that?

 

Wikipedia is a VERY reliable source of information.

 

I can't agree with that statement. I would say the opposite is true.
The faster 2 bodies are moving apart (earth and the star emitting the light) the greater the rate the distance will increase. This means light has to travel a greater distance because the planet is "running away" from it. If the planet is slowing down then the light can catch it sooner because it has less distance to cover.

Imagine a car driving at 10 mph towards a man running away at 5 mph.
Now imagine the same situation but the man is slowing down. The man travels less distance in the time it takes the car to catch him. Therefore the car catches him sooner and travels less distance.
Apply this to light: You see "less far back" in time because the light has travelled a shorter distance.

I certainly don't believe everything I read online but you have to remember that books tend to be biased by the person who creates them. The same is true of websites but you can google one hundred similar pages and compare them, whereas you might have only 1 or 2 books to compare.

Yeah I thought that's what you thought so I tried to clarify myself earlier. Well as long as you understand me now then mission accomplished. But what am I going to do with these flow charts I drew up?

 

I see what you're saying. What you're talking about is constant speed, light at it's ungodly 300,000 km/second and us at whatever. We don't need to be slowing down to see the past, we just need to be moving slower than light at a constant speed, or not moving at all (or maybe moving toward the light). What I'm saying is if we're slowing down, the light is moving a shorter distance, but more of it reaches us faster, so we're able to see more of the past in a smaller amount of time. And...that about covers it.

Not sure. Make some wicked hot physics whoopie? :lol:

 

I have to say Grossen is right on that point. I see where you're coming from, Tongy, the premise that a single photon would arrive at its destination, the viewer, earlier means that for the viewer the photon comes from a shorter distance back in time. But if the viewer is slowing down, as Grossen said, more light will reach them, and they'll be able to view more in a lesser amount of time. Thus he's able to se more of what happens, earlier.

 

Yeah, it just depends which definition you are using. Gross would see more photons but of more recent events. I would see less (assuming the photons hit stuff on the way) but it would be further back in time.
So we can all pat each other on the back for being right and then pick a new topic to argue about.

So, does the light really go off in your fridge when you shut the door?

 

Yes. Yes, it does.

 

Are you sure?

The light in the fridge exist in superposition. If we open the fridge, we perform an observation, thus we collapse the wavefunction to one state. Altough we need more experiments why it mainly collapses to the "light on" state.

Hehh, fridge uncertainty :lol:

 

Actually not really, because when you open your fridge you can find the latch that the door presses on when you close it. Push the latch down, the light goes off, and then release it, and lo, the light turns on. Simple measurements will show that the door presses on the latch.

 

What if the latch is gone wrong in such a way that it is jumps between the "light on" and "light off" state, with 50-50% probability?

(And if the latch is only pressed if the door is closed, how can we be sure if it really presses the latch?)