- #1
Seeruk
- 6
- 0
This is my first post on this message board. So if this message does not represent itself the way I am trying to express it, I apologize in advance.
Based on an article in Scientific American March 2005 addition, it stated that galaxies recede faster than light.
"The recession of a galaxy away from us (v) is directly proportional to its distance from us (d), or v = Hd. The proportional constant, H, is known as the Hubble constant and qualifies how fast space is stretching - not just around us but around any observer in the universe."
This is my views from what I gathered from different sources:
This is Hubble's law. It goes on to say that when a galaxy travels in space it increases in speed as it nears the Hubble distance. The Hubble distance is a curve in space where light exists on one side and not the other. The Hubble distance barrier is not constant, it continues to move further outward. The relative Velocity of space increases as space expands constantly. Where light occurs on one side of the Hubble distance, the laws of physics take place. On the other side the laws do not take place. Once light passes the Hubble distance it now moves faster than the speed of light. Thus if light can not be seen or subject to physics, it can not be measured. This may be why Einstein said nothing can move faster than the speed of light. If the Hubble distance is not constant, than if the barrier moves behind the Galaxy that is already going faster than the speed of light it would now be behind the Hubble distance and subject to the laws of physics and Einstein's concept. Would it not be Galactic chaos? The force on the Galaxy going from faster than to slower than the speed of light would be tremendous. An example supporting my hypotheses is a toy top. As it spins it gains speed,as you continue to spin, it will gain enough momentum to move. If a force comes in contact with the spinning object it causes a negative reaction in the tops movements. Thus the object becomes unbalanced and unpredictable. I believe, the same effect should happen to Galaxies. Why does this not occur.
-Seeruk
Based on an article in Scientific American March 2005 addition, it stated that galaxies recede faster than light.
"The recession of a galaxy away from us (v) is directly proportional to its distance from us (d), or v = Hd. The proportional constant, H, is known as the Hubble constant and qualifies how fast space is stretching - not just around us but around any observer in the universe."
This is my views from what I gathered from different sources:
This is Hubble's law. It goes on to say that when a galaxy travels in space it increases in speed as it nears the Hubble distance. The Hubble distance is a curve in space where light exists on one side and not the other. The Hubble distance barrier is not constant, it continues to move further outward. The relative Velocity of space increases as space expands constantly. Where light occurs on one side of the Hubble distance, the laws of physics take place. On the other side the laws do not take place. Once light passes the Hubble distance it now moves faster than the speed of light. Thus if light can not be seen or subject to physics, it can not be measured. This may be why Einstein said nothing can move faster than the speed of light. If the Hubble distance is not constant, than if the barrier moves behind the Galaxy that is already going faster than the speed of light it would now be behind the Hubble distance and subject to the laws of physics and Einstein's concept. Would it not be Galactic chaos? The force on the Galaxy going from faster than to slower than the speed of light would be tremendous. An example supporting my hypotheses is a toy top. As it spins it gains speed,as you continue to spin, it will gain enough momentum to move. If a force comes in contact with the spinning object it causes a negative reaction in the tops movements. Thus the object becomes unbalanced and unpredictable. I believe, the same effect should happen to Galaxies. Why does this not occur.
-Seeruk
Last edited: