Faster than Speed of Light? Yes.

[2stroke (Jay)]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Not related to black holes at all (or not much at least, I think), but...

I've always wanted to hear the sensible explanation for why, if I'm spinning around on my swivel chair (or standing on a rotating Earth, say), and all the galaxies are therefore appearing to whizz around me at speeds much faster than the speed of light, and with frames of reference supposedly being merely relative to one another and not in any way "privileged", how all the clever people get out of this conundrum by being able to insist that only I am the one accelerating and that the rest of the universe is not.

I'm not saying it's not true, mind. Just wondering is all...

Time to spark up a bob marley hahaha, acid may be needed to ride that train of thought

Bill Hicks
Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves.

Great theory ken, lol now i'am going to spend the next few days reading into black holes. I would put this on CN and see what the guys come up with

[stardust steve (Steve)]

Great concept Ken. Just about sums it up and sounds right to me.

[cwjohn (Chris)]

Not related to black holes at all (or not much at least, I think), but...

I've always wanted to hear the sensible explanation for why, if I'm spinning around on my swivel chair (or standing on a rotating Earth, say), and all the galaxies are therefore appearing to whizz around me at speeds much faster than the speed of light, and with frames of reference supposedly being merely relative to one another and not in any way "privileged", how all the clever people get out of this conundrum by being able to insist that only I am the one accelerating and that the rest of the universe is not.

I'm not saying it's not true, mind. Just wondering is all... Brian

Fascinating stuff.

Which galaxies precisely appear to be travelling at faster than the speed of light?

Which clever people insist that we are the only ones accellerating and the rest of the universe is not?

References would be fine. Pointers to papers on these matters would be better.

[avandonk]

If a photon had a mind it would perceive it's travel across the known Universe in an instant!

Unless of course you see it and then cruelly it remains with you as a sensation in your brain and never gets to the other end of the Universe! The same goes for your cameras etc.

Bert

[cwjohn (Chris)]

If a photon had a mind it would perceive it's travel across the known Universe in an instant!

Unless of course you see it and then cruelly it remains with you as a sensation in your brain and never gets to the other end of the Universe! The same goes for your cameras etc.

Having a mind presupposes matter, thereby denying such a perception. Of course one can theorise that one can have mind without matter, this being a metaphysical question I guess.

[Regulus (Trevor)]

Chris you rubber sheet analogy (which I also dislike but can't think of a better one) made me think thusly.
If a sun has thrown off mass and then collapsed to a point and is now a black hole, why wasn't the original sun with it's greater mass also a black hole??
Is it to do with the smaller area the mass is concentrated into?

Dave2042 thanks for the article link it was interesting.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by Miaplacidus

Not related to black holes at all (or not much at least, I think), but...

I've always wanted to hear the sensible explanation for why, if I'm spinning around on my swivel chair (or standing on a rotating Earth, say), and all the galaxies are therefore appearing to whizz around me at speeds much faster than the speed of light, and with frames of reference supposedly being merely relative to one another and not in any way "privileged", how all the clever people get out of this conundrum by being able to insist that only I am the one accelerating and that the rest of the universe is not.

I'm not saying it's not true, mind. Just wondering is all...

The explanation can be found in a book "Gravity from the bottom up", by Bernard Schutz (I think..).
It's about Mach principle..
I will post the related quote later today... when I find it.

[bojan]

My mistake, it was "The Fabric of the Cosmos - B. Greene".

This is very interesting book, you should read it...

Some relevant quotes are below:

Mach offered an answer to this objection. In an empty universe,
according to Mach, you feel nothing if you spin (more precisely, there is
not even a concept of spinning vs. nonspinning). At the other end of the
spectrum, in a universe populated by all the stars and other material
objects existing in our real universe, the splaying force on your arms and
legs is what you experience when you actually spin.

Einstein and others repeatedly considered the question of rotating motion using
the insights of special relativity; they concluded, like Newton and unlike
Mach, that even in an otherwise completely empty universe you would
feel the outward pull from spinning-Homer would feel pressed against
the inner mall of a spinning bucket; the rope between the two whirling
rocks would pull taut.' Hawking dismantled Newton's absolute space and
absolute time, how did Einstein explain this?
The answer is surprising. Its name notwithstanding, Einstein's theory
does not proclaim that everything is relative. Special relativity does claim
that some things are relative: velocities are relative; distances across space are relative; durations of elapsed time are relative. But the theory actually introduces a grand, new, sweepingly absolute concept: absolute spacetime.
Absolute spacetime is as absolute for speciai relativity as absolute
space and absolute time were for Newton, and partly for this reason Einstein
did not suggest or particularly like the name "relativity theory."
Instead, he and other physicists suggested invariance theories, stressing that the theory, at its core, involves something that everyone agrees on, something that is not relative

So, space and time and moving in space and time are relative things, but spacetime is different, it is absolute.

[LAW (Murphy)]

Hawking Radiation. That is all.

[Dave2042 (Dave)]

Originally Posted by Regulus

Chris you rubber sheet analogy (which I also dislike but can't think of a better one) made me think thusly.
If a sun has thrown off mass and then collapsed to a point and is now a black hole, why wasn't the original sun with it's greater mass also a black hole??
Is it to do with the smaller area the mass is concentrated into?

Dave2042 thanks for the article link it was interesting.

Regulus

You have correctly answered your own question. To elaborate, the Schwarzchild radius (ignoring spinning and charged matter) is simply defined for any point mass, right down to fundamental particles (leaving aside the fact that at this point QM is well in play). A non-point mass (eg a star) is a black hole iff it is so dense that it is all inside its Schwarzchild radius.

Glad someone enjoyed that link.

[Colin_Fraser]

I got to thinking about this.
If light, lots of it, could escape a black hole, then the hole would not be black

[Regulus (Trevor)]

Thanks David.
Thanks Bojan and for the book referral as well. Just looked it up on Amazon and found an ebook version.
Just reading Lisa Randall's new book Knocking On Heavens Door. I enjoyed her first one Warped Passages too.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

I got to thinking about this.
If light, lots of it, could escape a black hole, then the hole would not be black

Correct Colin

[Colin_Fraser]

Had another thought (this hurts). Light may be able to escape a black hole.
If objects collapse to a point where they become black holes, and the gravity is great enough to suck in nearby objects, then these objects may have collapsed as well.
If that happens then perhaps there is no light in the black hole

[Miaplacidus (Brian)]

Thanks, Bojan. Much appreciated.

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Hi,

It's a bit lightweight, and has been on several times already, but Prof Brian Cox is doing his thing on SBS2 at 08.30pm tonight in "What Time is it?", looking at the Arrow of Time, and how we cope with it.

Cheers