While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than light with respect to each other when they are in a local, dynamical relationship, it places no theoretical constraint on the relative motion between two objects that are globally separated and out of causal contact.
So besides stating a complete nonsense theory as a past possiblity, they claim that something is magically accelerating matter away faster and faster.
That's what observation indicates. Don't blame the authors for that. If you don't like it, get yourself an astrophysics degree and disprove it.
They claim that matter is currently traveling at faster than the speed of light and that's really all the further you need to read into this complete bullshit.
Do you dismiss as bullshit everything you just don't understand?
Space expands. This can cause the distance between objects to increase at greater than the speed of light. Whether those objects can therefore be said to be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to each other gets a bit metaphysical, not least because at that point they are separated by an event horizon, but it doesn't violate relativity:
While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than light with respect to each other when they are in a local, dynamical relationship, it places no theoretical constraint on the relative motion between two objects that are globally separated and out of causal contact
Any relaxation in the distances should destabilize the whole thing. So yeah, we will eventually get ripped open.
Yeah, but what I'm saying is, would that still happen if expansion remained constant? Suppose space was expanding at 0.1 metres per metre per year. You put a ruler in space and leave it for 100,000 years. In that time space would have expanded 10,000x, but is the expansion so slow that wouldn't the attraction between the particles of the ruler keep it together over that time?
If, though, expansion accelerates (as it seems it does), eventually space will be expanding at crazy numbers like thousands of metres per metre per second. Under those kinds of forces I can see why atoms wouldn't be able to keep it together.
but I think it's interesting how well it lines up with observation.
I think your example is tautological. It doesn't really imply anything about the shape of our universe. The only observation it lines up with is "space is expanding" which would be the same if the universe were on the surface of any other hyper-shape, wouldn't it?
Assume you could do 10*C it would still take 3000 years to the center of the galaxy
Nope. At 0.9999999c it will only take you 11.6 years to get to the center of the galaxy (plus, say, a year or two for acceleration).
Now, admittedly, this doesn't mean you'll be able to make it back in time to see how the world copes with the 2038 problem - or even the events of Dune - but travel time is not an issue.
After a while, the space between the nucleus and electrons or within the nucleus itself will become too large
Won't the attraction between particles (or the quantum effects that keep electrons in their orbits) overcome this expansion? Or are you talking about a time when the accelerating expansion occurs so rapidly the even a "correctly spaced" atom gets ripped to pieces?
In that case it's not so much that too much expansion has occured (it's been occuring since the beginning of time, after all) but that it occurs too quickly.
Otherwise, the way you put it sounds like we're constantly being stretched and will eventually pop open even if expansion doesn't accelerate.
Likely the more correct statement is the maximum speed of light is the speed of gravity. So there are quite few particles that travel faster than the speed of light.
I think you missed a few logical steps out there. Also, the names of these faster-than-light particles would be good to know.
Google, Facebook, et al, don't force you to submit data to them, or take it without your knowledge, but when you do they'll mine it for all its worth. Are concerns about that not legitimate either?
you actually have to wear some useless "headset" and then be exposed to pretty obvious material ("flashing" straight or gay couples or candidates, really??)
Like, say, an Occulus Rift that shows you ads between game levels, and monitors which ones you find particularly captivating? That doesn't sound so ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
For the benefit of others:
While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than light with respect to each other when they are in a local, dynamical relationship, it places no theoretical constraint on the relative motion between two objects that are globally separated and out of causal contact.
So besides stating a complete nonsense theory as a past possiblity, they claim that something is magically accelerating matter away faster and faster.
That's what observation indicates. Don't blame the authors for that. If you don't like it, get yourself an astrophysics degree and disprove it.
They claim that matter is currently traveling at faster than the speed of light and that's really all the further you need to read into this complete bullshit.
Do you dismiss as bullshit everything you just don't understand?
Space expands. This can cause the distance between objects to increase at greater than the speed of light. Whether those objects can therefore be said to be travelling faster than the speed of light relative to each other gets a bit metaphysical, not least because at that point they are separated by an event horizon, but it doesn't violate relativity:
While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than light with respect to each other when they are in a local, dynamical relationship, it places no theoretical constraint on the relative motion between two objects that are globally separated and out of causal contact
There. Got it?
What are you talking about?
Any relaxation in the distances should destabilize the whole thing. So yeah, we will eventually get ripped open.
Yeah, but what I'm saying is, would that still happen if expansion remained constant? Suppose space was expanding at 0.1 metres per metre per year. You put a ruler in space and leave it for 100,000 years. In that time space would have expanded 10,000x, but is the expansion so slow that wouldn't the attraction between the particles of the ruler keep it together over that time?
If, though, expansion accelerates (as it seems it does), eventually space will be expanding at crazy numbers like thousands of metres per metre per second. Under those kinds of forces I can see why atoms wouldn't be able to keep it together.
Yes. At least, I think so. Although "appearance" might be a slightly misleading term to use, event horizons being abstract.
but I think it's interesting how well it lines up with observation.
I think your example is tautological. It doesn't really imply anything about the shape of our universe. The only observation it lines up with is "space is expanding" which would be the same if the universe were on the surface of any other hyper-shape, wouldn't it?
Assume you could do 10*C it would still take 3000 years to the center of the galaxy
Nope. At 0.9999999c it will only take you 11.6 years to get to the center of the galaxy (plus, say, a year or two for acceleration).
Now, admittedly, this doesn't mean you'll be able to make it back in time to see how the world copes with the 2038 problem - or even the events of Dune - but travel time is not an issue.
After a while, the space between the nucleus and electrons or within the nucleus itself will become too large
Won't the attraction between particles (or the quantum effects that keep electrons in their orbits) overcome this expansion? Or are you talking about a time when the accelerating expansion occurs so rapidly the even a "correctly spaced" atom gets ripped to pieces?
In that case it's not so much that too much expansion has occured (it's been occuring since the beginning of time, after all) but that it occurs too quickly.
Otherwise, the way you put it sounds like we're constantly being stretched and will eventually pop open even if expansion doesn't accelerate.
They are called "tachyons".
And that almost certainly don't exist, which was my point.
Although perhaps under such circumstances concepts like "receding" and "moving" become a bit more ambiguous than we're used to.
Nope. Distances between objects can increase faster than c because space is expanding.
Likely the more correct statement is the maximum speed of light is the speed of gravity. So there are quite few particles that travel faster than the speed of light.
I think you missed a few logical steps out there. Also, the names of these faster-than-light particles would be good to know.
Google, Facebook, et al, don't force you to submit data to them, or take it without your knowledge, but when you do they'll mine it for all its worth. Are concerns about that not legitimate either?
you actually have to wear some useless "headset" and then be exposed to pretty obvious material ("flashing" straight or gay couples or candidates, really??)
Like, say, an Occulus Rift that shows you ads between game levels, and monitors which ones you find particularly captivating? That doesn't sound so ridiculous.
I hear there's a bug in the string length() method that miscounts by 1.
including some high-motion ones that they say, truthfully, are excellent to watch full-screen.
Which are the "high-motion" ones? I'd hope that would mean upwards of 50fps. Did you just mean "lots of things moving around"?
An android phone is quite flexible
*snap*
Crap.
"Special Polymer Used in New Komputers."
What's propagandist about this story?
The non-American world
What, Canada is in on this too? What about Iceland?
attempting to hack the evil U.S. to pieces
It sounds like most of the targets in this case are European. Persecution complex?
A deadline has a wonderful way of concentrating the mind. No deadline, less motivation.
That was actually January 3982. It was easier just to let it roll over the first time round.
Our powered suits could be used to assist and support remote-controlled robots in emergencies
Hey, aren't the robots supposed to be assisting and supporting us?
could be useful at nuclear plants
Or factories. Or hospitals. Or zoos. Or mines. Or particle accelerators. Or shipyards.
Is that to the tune of the The Big Bang Theory theme, or Billy Joel's We Didn't Start The Fire?
Ironic Isnt it?
No, it's not.
Not likely. The NSA has tried and failed to break into truecrypt volumes in the past.
Which you know for a fact, because if they had succeeded, they'd definitely tell us. Right?