and

A Higgs-Boson walks into a church, the priest says "We don't allow Higgs-Bosons in here.". The Higgs-Boson says "But without me how can you have mass?"
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/a7x4e/a_higgsboson_walks_into_a_church_the_priest_says/
theres funny ones there, might have to look for them...

 

John, you mean this?

"The Universe did not expand faster than light. The Universe was big enough 12 billion years ago that the light from some distant objects is only getting to us now. That doesn't mean that the Universe was more than 12 billion light years wide 12 billion years ago. Because we're moving away from the object, the light has had to catch up to us.
Dr. Eric Christian"

No, I was not referring to that comment (#3), I was referring to the subsequent comment. Dr. Christian is clearly referring to objects in the universe, not space. Moreover, I was not referring to whether space was expanding at greater than c but whether it could expand at greater than light speed.

Earlier on, Mitch Electronics posted:

galaxies dont travel at the speed of light, its just the space between them is expanding at a rate that is "faster than the speed of light

To which you replied:

Fraid not, that rule still holds, there is no faster than light with galaxies moving away from Earth. It is the same scenario I mentioned earlier.

While it is a bit unclear to which "rule" and "same scenario" you refer, I interpreted Mitch Electronics' comment to apply to the space and your comment to say that space could not expand faster than c.

On that particular point, Dr. Moebius responded at #4(emphasis added):

This expansion does not violate Einstein's theory of relativity, even though the imaginary dough of the even larger Universe, which we can't see beyond that edge, appears to recede at speeds larger than the speed of light. The dough represents space itself, and in our expanding Universe space itself is expanding, carrying the galaxies (represented by the raisins) along on a ride. Einstein's limit to the speed of light applies only to motion through space, and not to expansion of space itself.
Dr. Eberhard Moebius
(April 2003)

Admittedly, I have never studied this subject, except for a brief exposure in university physics and physical chemistry. However, I was under the impression that the speed limit applied only to objects with mass, i.e., space could expand faster than light, and there was no restriction on existence of faster than light somethings. They just can't be accelerated from sub-light to super-light speeds.

John

 

As far as I know there are no examples of FTL, including the expansion of the universe. To break a scientific law all it takes is one example, just one, and the Theory of Relativity has held up against all comers.

I have heard as a hypothesis that during the first few microseconds of the big bang this may not have been the case. We were looking at a special class of singularity at that time.

I am a SciFi buff, so I can't help but wonder if there aren't other ways around it. I don't think simple velocity will do the trick though.

 

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.

Oh, no! Bill! Ya just burst my bubble! Next thing you know, you'll be claiming the National Enquirer wasn't 100% factual! (Chuckling quietly behind the safety of my monitor.)

ROFLMAO,
--Rich

 

Bill.
Space cam expand at a rate which is "faster than light". It has no mass, it is not tied to the laws of special realtivity (mass moving through space)

Let me lay something down:

you cant ACCELERATE faster than the speed of light (cant accelerate to it)

you CAN travel AT the speed of light (and faster) as long as you DONT accelerate
A taychion (i think) travels at the speed of light, does not accelerate to it, it is allready traveling at that speed and thus does not brake the laws of physics. And the same for space!

 

I have heard as a hypothesis that during the first few microseconds of the big bang this may not have been the case. We were looking at a special class of singularity at that time.

That's another action attributed to the Higgs particle. That's why finding evidence of the critter is so important. Cosmology has to go back to the drawing board if a particle can't be found that directly affects mass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

 

I am a SciFi buff, so I can't help but wonder if there aren't other ways around it. I don't think simple velocity will do the trick though.

Well, If it is interaction with the Higgs Boson like Beenthere said, some sort of shielding against them should prevent increase of mass and allow velocity to increase like it does at low speeds...
Or so I would guess.
Mu sum total in this is about an hour on Wikipedia and this thread.

 

Bill.
Space cam expand at a rate which is "faster than light". It has no mass, it is not tied to the laws of special realtivity (mass moving through space)

Let me lay something down:

you cant ACCELERATE faster than the speed of light (cant accelerate to it)

you CAN travel AT the speed of light (and faster) as long as you DONT accelerate
A taychion (i think) travels at the speed of light, does not accelerate to it, it is allready traveling at that speed and thus does not brake the laws of physics. And the same for space!

Again, no. From our point of view nothing can exceed he speed of light. If it did it would be a tachyon, and effectively not exist in our universe. The speed of light is very effective wall. The math is very firm on this, you can get as close as you like, but you can't touch it.

BTW, the tachyon is a hypothetical particle, whose existence is postulated but never proven. Given the state of our science it may never be proven.

It doesn't matter how you get there, you can not exceed the speed of light. This is core to the theory of relativity, non negotiable, and no exceptions. It is as set as E=MC².

Since you assert that Relativity is in the dumpster (big news that, I think I would have heard about it), would you care to show sources?

Again, the expanding universe is still acceleration, it is semantics to claim it isn't, and I have read no scientific articles that claim otherwise.

There is also the little issue of visual sight. If they had exceeded FTL, how would you see them? They are visible, we can measure their relative speed via doppler shift. Again, none of this contradicts the theory of relativity, if verifies it.

 

Source? My dad XD
He is an amazing mathematician and physics guy. He taugh me most things i know and he also said that you cant approch the speed of light, but you can travel at it provided you did not accelerate towards it

 

If your relative velocity is changing with respect to earth (notice you have to define the observer always) then that is acceleration. There is no way you can achieve or exceed light speed, you can only add 9's to the speed, forever. Something that is going 99.99999% has tremendous energy invested in it, almost nuclear in magnitude.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I think conventional science is on my side.

 

some sort of shielding against them should prevent increase of mass and allow velocity to increase like it does at low speeds...

That is Cavorite, discovered by H. G. Wells - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Men_in_the_Moon

 

That is Cavorite, discovered by H. G. Wells - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Men_in_the_Moon

Cavorite's anti-gravity, not anti-mass

 

Jeesh, doesn't anyone read the Lensmen series anymore?

Heinlein used it too, but with his star drive relativity still ruled.

 

Relativity and FTL Travel

FAQ: http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_intro.html

 

Cavorite's anti-gravity, not anti-mass

Not so. Shielding against gravity means shielding against the particles that create the effects we refer to as mass. Mass and gravity are inseparable. A Cavorite shielded body will have no mass in this universe, although we may assume such effects are continued inside the shielding.

We could arrange a demo is a supply of Cavorite would turn up. We can be more sure of how the universe works if the Higgs particle will turn up.

 

Who's idea was it to create such a huge empty space and put everything there for us to go berserk thinking about it?

 

Mass and gravity are inseparable.

Not necessarily - gravitons are a possibly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

 

Who's idea was it to create such a huge empty space and put everything there for us to go berserk thinking about it?

Too f*cking right !!!!

 

Riddle me this?

Can a stationary(not moving) photon exist? They get the equivalent of mass from their velocity, so if they slow down to a stop, wouldn't they be massless? and therefore, not exist as a photon anymore?

 

That is not quite the case - photons have no mass and are never at rest - http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/f/photon.htm?rd=1