Let's try to clear up your confusion gflash:
E=1/2*mv^2 is Newton's formula describing the kinetic energy required to accelerate a mass to a velocity or conversely the kinetic energy possessed by a moving body of a given mass at a given velocity. It remains valid at all attainable speeds provided the relativistic increase in mass with velocity is accounted for. Since the speed of light is not attainable for bodies with a non-zero rest mass that is not a breakdown of the equation, just an experimental condition that cannot be reached.
E=m*c^2 is Einstein's formula describing the potential energy available from a given mass by converting it to energy or conversely the mass loss required to obtain a given amount of energy. It remains valid at all scales.
E=1/2*mv^2 is Newton's formula describing the kinetic energy required to accelerate a mass to a velocity or conversely the kinetic energy possessed by a moving body of a given mass at a given velocity. It remains valid at all attainable speeds provided the relativistic increase in mass with velocity is accounted for. Since the speed of light is not attainable for bodies with a non-zero rest mass that is not a breakdown of the equation, just an experimental condition that cannot be reached.
E=m*c^2 is Einstein's formula describing the potential energy available from a given mass by converting it to energy or conversely the mass loss required to obtain a given amount of energy. It remains valid at all scales.
A black hole and its event horizon is fully consistent with Einstein's General Relativity...less than a year after Einstein published General Relativity, Kurt Schwarzschild discovered a solution to Einstein's equations that provided the mathematical basis for black holes...the Schwarzschild radius (the radius of the event horizon) was named in his honor.
Apparently the amount of dark matter is increasing according to an article I read just this morning. Same effect as too much food over Xmas - expansion is unavoidable.
Maybe the dark matter is filling the void between increasing particle distance?
If you discover something interesting, you end up finding it everywhere you look. Just like chantrelles! See one and then you find lots.
Edit:
But maybe death trumpets is a better model of comparison, 'cause they are more rare, and then there's the thing that they are in fact, dark. They are also matter!
Wow! Dark matter = death trumpets!
If you discover something interesting, you end up finding it everywhere you look. Just like chantrelles! See one and then you find lots.
Edit:
But maybe death trumpets is a better model of comparison, 'cause they are more rare, and then there's the thing that they are in fact, dark. They are also matter!
Wow! Dark matter = death trumpets!
Last edited:
Not truly related, perhaps. I'm a carpenter, not a physicist; does the red shift in light count as a change in the constant of C?
I've also read that light crossing one of the billions of light year cold voids loses energy by the end of the crossing.
That would seem to me as being a variable in light.
Then again, while in an after double cheese pizza torpor, I was trying to grasp quantum entanglement. It occurred to me that maybe time and space are illusions of a singular all encompassing photon. Within the photon is....everything. From the photon's perspective, we don't even exist, and from ours, we are unable to see what surrounds and permeates us, as a whole. Lost my point, because at that point, Amazon buzzed me . I felt sure my sleepy mind was on to something good though.
The redshift is a change in the frequency of light (blue = higher frequencies & red = lower frequencies) that occurs due to the expansion of spacetime, the speed of light in a vacuum remains unchanged. That the redshift is directly proportional to distance is the key evidence that the Universe is expanding. I am unfamiliar with the term "cold void".
Voids have been discovered, billions of light years across, about 14 billion light years distant. It's been stated that these are comparitively colder than normal interstellar space, by a few degrees, and are devoid of even any detectable hydrogen atoms. The distance a photon travels in these conditions causes them to lose energy, according to some theorists. Doesn't shifting to a longer wavelength constitute a lower state of energy?
I think we will never understand. So many things are unexplained.
In the case of science, the more answers it gives, the more questions remains.
For example, why are there colors? What else could be? What is logics, from where does it comes from? if all this universe is invented or self created, why? could there be something else than colors, something else than life?
In the case of science, the more answers it gives, the more questions remains.
For example, why are there colors? What else could be? What is logics, from where does it comes from? if all this universe is invented or self created, why? could there be something else than colors, something else than life?
And the all important one:
Are Death Trumpets or other mushrooms sentient?
They cannot move, but are really good at hiding. Maybe mushrooms plan stuff?
Are Death Trumpets or other mushrooms sentient?
They cannot move, but are really good at hiding. Maybe mushrooms plan stuff?
It's not a place, it's us. We're it...the final destination. Scary isn't it. Left to our own devices, an answer/response to anything and everything. The Apocalypse. Heaven or hell. Our choice.
"I don't think of the past, the only thing that matters is the everlasting present"
-W. Somerset Maugham
"I don't think of the past, the only thing that matters is the everlasting present"
-W. Somerset Maugham
Another theory:
Light does not conserve it's energy over massive distance, i.e. light-years. Or rather it goes somewhere, if you'd like. Where? I don't know of course 😀
Or the observations are somehow shifted red some other way?
This is much more plausible than saying the universe has negative energy or whatever (also related to concepts of "dark matter").
Negative energy theories are necessary because universe is expanding at a faster rate the further you go, implies energy input, of course.
These are all wild assertions made by extremely far distance observations, including the "the big bang", which is basically a religion, AKA "moment of creation".
No one can confirm why the light is shifted red, movement, energy loss. But physics equations have not held up over larger and smaller distances, historically. They only work up to a point. I believe only 10% of the matter in our galaxy is visible. According to the equations we have there should be 90% more matter than we can see. See the key word there: "should".
It's much easier making up theories/concepts than it is finding equations that work. So scientists do the former.
Also it's good to remember: science advances one funeral at a time. I won't go into the reasoning for that 🙂
Red shift is not a property of the light itself but rather one of the observer. I suppose we know the losses for light when in transit?
//
//
It may be useful to make a distinction between cosmological redshift and the more familiar Doppler shift.
In Doppler shift, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the motion of the object at the instant the photons are emitted. If the object is travelling away from us, the wavelength is shifted towards the red end.
In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body.
For example, in a distant binary system, in which the individual stars can be approaching us or receding from us, it is theoretically possible to measure both a Doppler shift and a cosmological redshift.
In Doppler shift, the wavelength of the emitted radiation depends on the motion of the object at the instant the photons are emitted. If the object is travelling away from us, the wavelength is shifted towards the red end.
In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body.
For example, in a distant binary system, in which the individual stars can be approaching us or receding from us, it is theoretically possible to measure both a Doppler shift and a cosmological redshift.
Recession velocities can be greater than the speed of light, but this does not conflict with Special Relativity's fundamental principle that c is the ultimate speed limit.
As Kevin explained, it's due to the expansion of spacetime. No material object is actually moving faster than c, instead it's the entire distance between the receding object and us that is increasing.
The maximum velocity of any material object relative to another is the speed of light, c, approximately 300,000,000m/s.
The expansion of the universe does not impart a relative velocity to galaxies within the universe, it simply causes the distances between them to get larger.
We observe that galaxies are receding from us and can assign to each of them a 'recessional velocity'. This is not a velocity in the normal sense, but simply the rate of change of the distance between them and us.
And yes, this rate of change can exceed 300,000,000m/s! 😎
- Status
- Not open for further replies.