topic Re: The beginning? in The Round Table

The beginning?

cee-dee — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:14:48 GMT

OK, so "They" say "everything" began with the Big Bang.

Fair enough, it was quite something and happened faster than the blink of an eye?

"They" also say nothing can travel faster than light?

If that's so, how can "They" view light which "began" shortly after the Big Bang?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375

We are "here", they're viewing light from a heck of a long way away, such light will have taken billions of years to get here even at approximately 186,000 miles per second.

So how did we get out "here", so far from that light when it was Starlight so long ago?

OK, were we able to get to the source of that light in an instant, we'd find it was probably no longer there but we are billions of miles from where that light was so how come the matter from which our Solar System was formed got sooooo far away from the Stars they're no "seeing"?

Re: The beginning?

mitzigirl_123 — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:53:10 GMT

This is one of my all time favourite topics unfortunately, my little brain cannot and never will be able to comprehend or even visualise the sheer vastness of time and space.

All we can ever learn about our universe is what we have here on our habitable rock to make sense of it all and until our scientists find a fuelling method to propel space craft to the outer limits of the universe and beyond or, in this case, develop further our telescopes, I will never know unless, an extra terrestrial being visits us and tells us otherwise that we have got our sums wrong and it’s all an optical illusion. :^O

This is an age old question and I will be enthralled to read other’s responses.

Re: The beginning?

sir_arthur_strebe-grebling — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 15:56:33 GMT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Re: The beginning?

mitzigirl_123 — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:45:30 GMT

Sir-A

Re: The beginning?

lhasa.two — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:16:54 GMT

mitzi, I think that's one of the problems, it is an age old question. It also requires a massive amount of thought - which change as new info comes to light - and knowledge, neither of which I can manage these days...

This is pretty cool though...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19728375#

Re: The beginning?

cee-dee — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:43:47 GMT

Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmm, I'm puzzled.

There's a link in my OP, has it disappeared in to Scotch mist or has that rascally Mitzi pinched it?

Re: The beginning?

upthecreekyetagain — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:03:03 GMT

It's all relative CD

Imagine a light source travelling away from you at half the speed of light. As far as you are concerned light being emitted from that object is travelling at the speed of light whether or not it is the light from the object coming towards you or travelling away from you. What would be different though if you could observe the light being emitted from you by the object would be time.

So although the photons are travelling at the speed of light the time they woul take to reach you is much longer.

Have a read of this

http://www.costellospaceart.com/html/time_and_the_speed_of_light.html

Re: The beginning?

cee-dee — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 20:46:06 GMT

Right, I read it all but the question isn't answered.

The Big Bang happened OK? "Stuff" went in all directions?

If Einstein is right (?) things with mass cannot travel as fast as the speed of light never mind faster.....

Soooo, how come the "stuff" we and all that we know are made of got so far away from the point of the Big Bang (and just where WAS it?) so quickly? So fast that we've got so far away from "other stuff" that the light from that other stuff took 13.2 billion years to reach us?

Those Stars made from that "other stuff" are probably not there now anyway. When they "look back" further and see light from even further away and from so long ago, surely that reinforces my question as to how we came to be made of "stuff" so far away from that "other stuff" (from which they'll then be seeing light) if the Big Bang didn't propel stuff with mass faster than the speed of light?

Re: The beginning?

sir_arthur_strebe-grebling — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:03:42 GMT

Sorry, I'm not understanding your problem.

The universe is about 14 billion years old, so it is not surprising that light from the most distant objects is taking 13.2 billion years to get here.

These objects now have mass, but they didn't at the instant of the BIg Bang.

Re: The beginning?

upthecreekyetagain — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:21:45 GMT

If Einstein is right (?) things with mass cannot travel as fast as the speed of light never mind faster.....

That's not actually what he proposed.

Relative to your position an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Remember speed is a combination of distance and time.

You could have an object travelling away from your left at 3/4 the speed of light and one away from your right at 3/4 speed of light.

However if you were on the object to your left the one travelling away to the right wouldn't be travelling away from you at one and half times the speed of light but at the speed of light.

Time on the object moving to the left is not the same as on the "stationary" object nor on the one moving to the right.

Re: The beginning?

cee-dee — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:26:00 GMT

The "objects" are made of "stuff" with mass, it must therefore have had mass "in the beginning".

I don't think anyone has "explained" yet how something without mass can, after travelling through "space" somehow gain mass?

If it IS possible for something without mass to gain mass, how come all the "stuff" without mass hasn't yet gained mass?

You see, when people can't explain something, they fall back on "it happened". Failing that, it's on with some other "invention" to explain away the fact that "they" don't know.

The Singularity was supposed to exist at the beginning of the Universe but later it was stated that there was no Singularity at the beginning of the Universe.Hmmmmmm?

The Big Bang was supposed to have infinate density. To have density you have to have mass? Therefore whatever was propelled "out" at the time of the Big Bang had mass and "stuff" with mass can't travel as fast as the speed of light?

It seems an unfortunate "scientific term" because the Singularity was something coined by a science fiction writer.

Perhaps science fiction isn't so far from fact after all and one day it will be possible to travel at Warp Speed?

Re: The beginning?

*forum*decorum* — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:30:43 GMT

The "objects" are made of "stuff" with mass, it must therefore have had mass "in the beginning".

I don't think anyone has "explained" yet how something without mass can, after travelling through "space" somehow gain mass?

If it IS possible for something without mass to gain mass, how come all the "stuff" without mass hasn't yet gained mass?

You see, when people can't explain something, they fall back on "it happened". Failing that, it's on with some other "invention" to explain away the fact that "they" don't know.

The Singularity was supposed to exist at the beginning of the Universe but later it was stated that there was no Singularity at the beginning of the Universe.Hmmmmmm?

The Big Bang was supposed to have infinate density. To have density you have to have mass? Therefore whatever was propelled "out" at the time of the Big Bang had mass and "stuff" with mass can't travel as fast as the speed of light?

It seems an unfortunate "scientific term" because the Singularity was something coined by a science fiction writer.

Perhaps science fiction isn't so far from fact after all and one day it will be possible to travel at Warp Speed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBvR9CCLo1o

Re: The beginning?

cee-dee — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:33:30 GMT

UTCYA. Now in your link, we had Bill and Mary and a game of table tennis. The stationary observer was supposed to view the ball at 100MPH.

I think if you put that to a practical test Bill would observe the ball travelling at 10MPH, the same speed that Mary saw it.

It seems to me that the writer has fallen for the same assumption as when two cars, both travelling at 50MPH collide, the effect is the same as one car hitting a brick wall at 100MPH which is not so.

Re: The beginning?

upthecreekyetagain — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 21:49:58 GMT

CD - Bill on the platform would see the ball travelling at 100MPH.

The train is moving to his left at 90MPH and the ball is going 10MPH faster than the train.

Your analogy of the car is not appropriate although it is worth mentioning that the effect of one car travelling at 100MPH hitting a stationary car would be the same as two cars both travelling at 50MPH hitting each other or indeed one travelling at 80MPH and the other at 20MPH.

Re: The beginning?

cee-dee — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 22:26:09 GMT

So if the ball was hit the other way, Bill would "see" the ball travelling at 80MPH?

It's been proven by practical test with decelerometers that that two cars colliding head on at 50MPH did NOT have the same effect as crashing one car in to a brick wall at 100MPH.

Re: The beginning?

upthecreekyetagain — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 23:49:58 GMT

So if the ball was hit the other way, Bill would "see" the ball travelling at 80MPH?

It's been proven by practical test with decelerometers that that two cars colliding head on at 50MPH did NOT have the same effect as crashing one car in to a brick wall at 100MPH.

Yes

Comparing two cars colliding with each other and one car colliding with a brickwall is not comparing like with like.

A car travelling at 50MPH colliding with a brick wall travelling towards it at 50MPH would have the same consequences as a car hitting a stationary wall at 100MPH 😉

Re: The beginning?

cee-dee — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:09:23 GMT

Heck creeky, you keep late hours.

I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

It's been tried practically by crashing (scrap) cars of the same make and model in to each other both at 50MPH, then one in to a brick wall at 50MPH.

The damage and deceleration was exactly the same.

Re: The beginning?

upthecreekyetagain — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:48:56 GMT

Heck creeky, you keep late hours.

I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

It's been tried practically by crashing (scrap) cars of the same make and model in to each other both at 50MPH, then one in to a brick wall at 50MPH.

The damage and deceleration was exactly the same.

Of course it is - or very similar - simple Newtonian physics.

But as I said, you are not comparing like with like.

To make a true comparison you would have to compare a car travelling at 50MPH hitting a wall also travelling at 50MPH - the consequences of such a collision would be the same as a car hitting a stationary brick wall at 100MPH

Two cars, both travelling at 50MPH in a head on collision compared to a car travelling at 100MPH hitting a stationary car. The consequences again would be the same.

Re: The beginning?

logbox — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:22:49 GMT

Does your question not depend on where the big bang took place? I see what you mean about how did 'we' get here before the light, but if we are close to the centre then is the light on the other side traveling away from us?

Re: The beginning?

electric*mayhem*band — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:03:19 GMT

Good Lord Logs, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. :_|