6 posts • joined 16 Nov 2012
So; if we get in a time machine, travel to Mars. Await a known meteorite impact, then we can have a Martian bath.
But what, I wonder makes us turn green?
I think all of my comments still hold true (with a little creative imagination) given that "everything is expanding away from everything else). Instead of it expanding away from us; it becomes: "that which is expanding away, the farthest from us..."
Re: 'Far, Far Away' records broken by new GALAXY
Korea is indeed "Far, far away." But; as tablets (I do not know that you can use/convert them to a phablet...) the Galaxy is NOT a record breaker if you check every single stat...
Sure; I'm aware of that, and many other explanations. It is a most reasonable one. Based on that, eventually the observable universe will be greater than when before. Only given the slow (relative) rate of expanse, we are unable to see either things moving beyond this limit, nor anything "dropping out of the field of visibility" (again; obviously if indeed that were possible...).
But; is it not also of some coincidence that the objects at the periphery of the observable universe are travelling at a significant proportion of the speed of light? Many are convinced this is not a coincidence. We do not know of matter at what point in such massive acceleration that light ceases to be "transmitted backwards." Leading many scientists to keep an open mind as to whether this speed is linked to a physical phenomena which is limiting at this point. So; I digress (back to where I started). It would indeed be a bit of coincidence if the universe had "happened" to just expand to this speed, at it's maximum distance from us, just now?
Call me Stupid?
Call me stupid, but wouldn't it be possible to travel faster-than-light through the same area through which they are using gravitational lensing? Although doubtless a long, long way away; yet, it can't help you getting but a little bit excited, no? And; if in the affirmative, what factor of c is attainable? Hmm. Perhaps warp speed IS possible, after all...
Even presuming that the universe is spherical (as opposed to a closed-circuit geometry where everywhere goes back on itself), no-one appears quiet sure if the edge of the observable universe IS the edge of the universe or:
the edge of the OBSERVABLE universe (i.e. light vanishes after this point, due to speed etc...).
Of course (just to clarify); if it's the edge of the universe completely, we take it to mean that matter "runs out" at that point. That it is the farthest to which galaxies have expanded period.
Hmm. It's almost certainly one of these three; just to recap:
Non-relevant geometry. Actual physical limit of matter. Light "fall off" point.
Or (d); something we hadn't thought of?
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Sysadmins and devs: Do these job descriptions make any sense?