http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_215146&feature=iv&v=myjaVI7_6Is

am confused , a galaxy has a mass but it moves faster than the speed of light ? How is that possible !

 

So now if you see it on YouTube it must be true. Puhleez you've been pu'ked my friend.

 

So now if you see it on YouTube it must be true. Puhleez you've been pu'ked my friend.

so if it's on YouTube it's inevitably incorrect ? i see an argument from ignorance here

 

YouTube is just a place where anyone can post videos of pretty much anything. They even have "working" overunity devices, doesn't make it true or factual though.

 

so if it's on YouTube it's inevitably incorrect ? i see an argument from ignorance here

So do I. No one has suggested that everything on YouTube is incorrect or a hoax.

Edit: Here's a link to calculation of the Doppler shift: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/reldop3.html#c3

For z=4.25, velocity is just 0.92c.

John

 

Ive always wondered about this, what if there were a galaxy moving towards us at .9c and we launched a rocket at it which accelerated to .11c, what happens?

 

so if it's on YouTube it's inevitably incorrect ? i see an argument from ignorance here

I did not say that, and did not imply that either explicitly or implicitly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. I think most will agree that video falls a bit short of that mark.

 

Ive always wondered about this, what if there were a galaxy moving towards us at .9c and we launched a rocket at it which accelerated to .11c, what happens?

What is the point of reference? There are "things" that can happen faster than the speed of light, they just can't transmit information.

Let us discuss each of these in turn. There are various sequences of events that are continuous in the required sense--e.g., a light beam, a projectile flying through space, a shadow, or a moving spot of light projected on a wall. An object that is sitting still, e.g., a billiard ball, is also deemed a causal process. Each of these is a continuous process in some sense but not all of them are causal processes--e.g., the shadow and light spot. Let's look at an example that makes this clearer. As some of you may know, relativity theory says that nothing can travel faster than light. But what is the "thing" in nothing? Consider a large circular room with a radius of 1 light year. If we have an incredibly focused laser beam mounted on a swivel in the center of the room, we can rotate the laser beam so that it rotates completely once per second. If the laser beam is on, it will project a spot on the wall. This spot too will rotate around the wall completely once per second, which means that it will travel at 2p light-years per second! Strangely enough, this is not prohibited by relativity theory, since a spot of this sort cannot "transmit information." Only things of that sort are limited in speed.

http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/phil_sci_lecture04.html

 

For masses in motion, there are always the good old relativistic effects - http://www.suite101.com/content/relativistic-effects-a2065

 

For masses in motion, there are always the good old relativistic effects - http://www.suite101.com/content/relativistic-effects-a2065

Yeah. It gets really hard to accelerate a mass that is increasing at a prodigious rate to achieve Warp 1. Now if you could just make your mass imaginary then you'd have to try missing things since you could not go slower than Warp 1.

 

And there's a problem when you phone home from the 26th dimension. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonic_string_theory

 

Or it could be something they come up with just to be famous

 

And there's a problem when you phone home from the 26th dimension.

Dr. Emilio Lizardo begs to differ with you, sir (ref: "Buckaroo Banzai").

 

May I pass along my congratulations for your great interdimensional breakthrough. I'm sure, in the miserable annals of the Earth, you will be duly inscribed.

Dr. Emilio Lizardo / Lord John Whorfin

 

good contribution people ? I wounder if that guy who made the video is trying hard to explain a physical phenomenon or just playing with our heads ? it's strange that he is a scientist

 

He is fundamentally wrong, particularly with respect to calculating z. If you call that a scientist fine. I don't. I call it a fraud/wannabe.

John

 

I remember being intensely curious about speed of light problems when I was in my 20's.

Take the following problem, you have two space ships approaching earth 180° apart each going ¾ the speed of light. So the differential is 1½ the speed of light, right?

Not really, the key concept in the Theory of Relativity is speeds are measured by the observer. When I looked up the math and crunched the numbers the closing speed of the space ships as measured by the ships is 7/8 the speed of light (you are still approaching Earth at ¾ the speed of light). In other words, the numbers you get are purely relative to where you measure them. The flow of time is another variable. Having said that a paradox pops out at me, if each ships time is moving slower than the other ships, but will be the same compared to Earth, what are their relative clocks to each other? Made my head hurt it does.

I've long since forgotten the math, but the concept stuck. No object can approach nor depart your platform (Earth) faster than light as measured from that platform. Two objects measured from Earth is relative to Earth, not each other. Relative speeds depend on where you are, and the answers change accordingly.

That is why it is called the Theory of Relativity, everything is relative to where you are.

 

He is fundamentally wrong, particularly with respect to calculating z. If you call that a scientist fine. I don't. I call it a fraud/wannabe.

John

Diddo.

I don't believe anything can travel faster than light.
Take this for example, if it is faster than light, it is invisible.

 

Take the following problem, you have two space ships approaching earth 180° apart each going ¾ the speed of light. So the differential is 1½ the speed of light, right?

So you said that comes out to 7/8c

what if there are two ships coming together 180° apart at 3/4c?

what would the speed of one ship be if the other ship was the reference point?

 

I think this explains what Bill Marsden was saying:

Source: Wikipedia = Faster-than-light

An observer may conclude that two objects are moving faster than the speed of light relative to each other, by adding their velocities according to the principle of Galilean relativity.

For example, two fast-moving particles approaching each other from opposite sides of a particle accelerator will appear to be moving at slightly less than twice the speed of light, relative to each other, from the point of view of an observer standing at rest relative to the accelerator. This correctly reflects the rate at which the distance between the two particles is decreasing, from the observer's point of view and is called the closing speed. However, it is not the same as the velocity of one of the particles as would be measured by a hypothetical fast-moving observer traveling alongside the other particle. To obtain this, the calculation must be done according to the principle of special relativity. If the two particles are moving at velocities v and −v, or expressed in units of c, β and −β, where

\( \beta \equiv v/c \,\!\)

then this relative velocity (again in units of the speed of light c) is

\(\beta_{rel} = { \beta - (-\beta) \over 1 + \beta ^2 } = { 2\beta \over 1 + \beta^2 }\),

which will always turn out to be less than the speed of light, regardless of the velocities of the two particles.

John