Well, so i don't look like a complete idiot on my upcomming science physics test, for the extra credit question, is something of your own choice.

My science teacher couldn't answer it, 'n he is pretty smart heh

The laws of physics state that we cannot move at the speed of light, as your mass increases as you approch it... Yet, according to what we're taught, we're all moving away from the center of the universe at the speed of light, witch techneqly is impossible, and also, if we move away using our own force (I.e. even walking, or spaceships) that sends up above the speed of light, a speed that should be impossible. So, how does it work?

How come we don't feel the theoretical time effects from going above the speed of lgiht (I.E. you're physically infront of your visable body), or is time itself just an illusion made by these speed, or is there a speed of time with greatly exceeds that of light? meaning your appearence will be able to keep insync with you.
Or is the true speed of light actully 600,000Kilometers per sec, doubt what we think.

And, does this kinda create that faster than light travel is possible, dispite close minded scientists would rather die than admit it is.

Hmmm... it might depend if we're reliant on the mass of the universe as an opposing force. Good question.

Intresting question. It raises only more for me... lol.

How do we know we're moving away from the centre of the universe at the speed of light? What is actually the centre of the universe if, what i believe, the universe is infinite?

If you're in a spaceship, in open space, do you still move, like all the other objects (planets and stars), away from the centre of the universe? If not, then you should be standing still and all the rest would move away from you at the speed of light.

Another thing, this whole mass increasing theory, does that really count in a vacuum without gravity?

Well, i imagine it would, but we dont have an accelorator in space to test it with yet.
We can tell because, if we look at another galaxy in the sky, the all appear to bee moving away from each other, all away from one point.

Well, I think it would move in open space still, as even our tiny suns gravity does have an effect that reaches all the way to the end of the universe, if there is one, but its so small its goes wayy smaller than pico numbers.

The universe is only expanding at the speed of light because light at the edge is moving outwards, matter is expading at a much slower pace.

I agree with Predator.
Light, from the big bang, would be moving outward at the speed of light, but I never heard that the physical matter is moving that fast.

I found this here.....
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=387


How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation?
Some sources indicate that the big bang caused an expansion which traveled faster than the speed of light. How can this be?

You ask a good question, one whose answer lies in the subtle difference between expansion that is faster than the speed of light and the propagation of information that is faster than the speed of light. The latter is forbidden by fundamental physical laws, but the former is allowed; that is, as long as you are not transmitting any information (like a light pulse), you can make something happen at a speed that is faster than that of light. The expansion of the Universe is a "growth" of the spacetime itself; this spacetime may move faster than the speed of light relative to some other location, as long as the two locations can't communicate with each other (or, in terms of light rays, these two parts of the Universe can't see each other). According to the theory of inflation, the Universe grew by a factor of 10 to the sixtieth power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so the "edges" of the Universe were expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light; however, as long as those edges can't see each other (which is what we always assume), there is no physical law that forbids it.

It's all relative to your surroundings.

Okay, im starting to get multiple idea from those.
We can tell we're all moving away from a single point because of the "red-shift" effect.
The galaxies further away from the inital point are moving the fastest (Witch contradicts what i learn in that we're moving away at the speed light).

Soo, think 5d space.... (5th being gravity, 4 = time.)
The entire matter of the universe was locked into a single point according to the bigbang theory, this would've made a massive black hole. but, what happens when that blackhole dies (theoreticly, or another possibility)? All the energy would spread out, imagine space as a giant sheet of rubber, you press down to it, and it bumps back out to a point nearly the same at the other side of the sheet... so what does that give us? A huge antigravity spike thatwould be shrinking over time, but, still, with emmense power.
The physics say that the entire universal matter cant be ejected at once, so, what if it was a gradiual release? that also explains why the outer universe is moving faster.
Spike (Lets number its high = 10= highest point)
10 = matter ejected at speed of light.
<=9 = matter ejected just below.

So, by that theory, the life cycle of the universe ill call it, means that, the space and physical dimensions have always been here, but eventually, all the energy ends up back in one single place, a massive blackhole, then the cycle repeats.

You will always be able to find and endless list of problems with anything that is false.

E=MC2 is great. It tells you what can come out of matter that is "blownup". It was however a mistake to think that this is some kind of limit to speed. If you fire a bullet standing still it will have a speed. If fired from the same gun on a speeding car it will inherit the added momentum of the car in relation to you. Thus it is reletive, I never understood how it could be otherwise, it very was otherwise.

Once this is recognized, a whole new area of discovery is possible as most never bothered to look, assuming that there was nothing to see, but there is.

Wasn't Xeno the guy who said matter couldn't move at all because there were an infinite number of fractions between any two points?


Personally, i don't believe science can tell us the nature of the universe. rather i think it is a limited perception created by limited beings to better translate the data they observe

Yeah, thats called Xeno's paradox.

Didnt know about that though until logn after i made this name.

Its one of his paradox.

so the light coming from the headlights of a moving car, is actually travelling faster than the speed of light

The speed of light isn't a limit. Also, the light coming from a head light would probably be slower than speed of life because gravitational forces and refraction slows down light.

No, Hippolyte Fizeau discovered that when energy is projected from a moving body the speed does not increase but the wavelength decreases (frequency increases); thus instead of increasing the speed (like what would happen if you projected matter while moving) it follows the dopplar effect and the speed stays the same.

Yep, what Pred says is right, its the Doppler effect, Ever notice on a police siern , it sounds higher pitched as it comes towards you, then lower as it moves away from you.

This is true for all forms of waves right? but not physcial objects. (Not counting light created by a physical object.)

The Doppler effect was mentioned here and is similar to the Red Shift
found in star light. They had Einstein pictured by a telescope most
likely with Hubble as they tried to explain to him what it meant.

The math transformation used by Einstein can make for odd results.

Weather the cyclotron that speed up electrons actually demonstrates
the mass increase or they just want more money I can't verify.

Since Maxwell the speed of light was always measured around the same
constant value.

Einstein's great work was in using Planck's quantum in statistical formulations
that rearranged already know empirical formulas, the old physics way.
His great interest in light and gravity are what was most talked about.

Greater than light speed was thought common by Tesla as cosmic rays
of high frequency means high energy. Planck related energy with frequency
and not mass. Tesla said the earth has a frequency of about one hour
an 45 minuets. But thats mechanical not electrical.

I recall Tesla would use a high voltage cannon to fire particles at or
greater than light and I just saw a google video on a fission rocket engine
that exhausted particles at the speed of light.

Not all, if not most, of what Tesla said is true, and a video would be unable to capture light if it could go faster than light (not to mention the paritcles would have infinite mass).

Predator, isn't there some thought in QP that because the basic parts of photons (light) can assume both particle and wave properties, that there is not the need for infinite mass? This would, in theory, allow for trave of a sort, faster than light since the speed limit refers ony to mass.

I haven't kept up well with physics, so I'm not sure on this, but do remember something along those lines.