2010: The year THEY make contact

[kaini]

apparent sideways velocity? is this because of the curvature of space?

 

my very limited understanding of relativity suggests that if an object travelled faster than the speed of light, you could not give it a fixed location at any particular time.

 

an object cannot travel ffaster than light; it can appear to due to relativistic effects. you seem to have mashed a bit of quantum physics in there for flavour too.

[Q27]

First thing I thought when I saw this thread was "You've got to be fucking kidding me."

Because of this:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/19162074

[Guest abusivegeorge]

It's a giant baby in a womb floating through space.

[baph]

Everyone knows that inteligent civizilations doesn't use radio for comunication.

 

Don't tell Geddy Lee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OF SALESMEN!

[Guest Gary C]

I'd imagine that when they say it's moving, they mean that the signal can be read in a sequential pattern across aligned positions. And in that sense I think, over such vast distances, it may be possible to study something moving at the speed of light.

[Guest Babar]

Imagine the universe is inside a cube. Now imagine you have a rotating laser. Although the beam's angular speed will be the the laser's spot should able to move faster than the speed of ligh. no ?

 

Imagine the universe is inside a cube. Now imagine you have a rotating laser. Although the beam's angular speed stay constant the laser's spot should be able to move faster than the speed of ligh if the walls are distant enough. no ?

[Guest Gary C]

Whoa. Abstract.

[bubbhasdance]

Imagine the universe is inside a cube. Now imagine you have a rotating laser. Although the beam's angular speed will be the the laser's spot should able to move faster than the speed of ligh. no ?

 

Imagine the universe is inside a cube. Now imagine you have a rotating laser. Although the beam's angular speed stay constant the laser's spot should be able to move faster than the speed of ligh if the walls are distant enough. no ?

 

this

[Guest margaret thatcher]

Imagine the universe is inside a cube. Now imagine you have a rotating laser. Although the beam's angular speed will be the the laser's spot should able to move faster than the speed of ligh. no ?

 

not quite - if the cube is large enough, the beam will appear to bend. the faster the angular speed, the more the curvature of the beam. the beam will only stay straight if the beam is moving outwards at an infinite speed.

[Guest Gary C]

Depends if you're reading from the walls of the box, or rather as an observer onto an opaque box.

[kaini]

Imagine the universe is inside a cube. Now imagine you have a rotating laser. Although the beam's angular speed will be the the laser's spot should able to move faster than the speed of ligh. no ?

 

not quite - if the cube is large enough, the beam will appear to bend. the faster the angular speed, the more the curvature of the beam. the beam will only stay straight if the beam is moving outwards at an infinite speed.

 

other objects would still bend the laser due to einsteinian gravitational lensing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_Cross

[baph]

There's enough miracles here to blow your brains

[Guest Gary C]

That's awesome.

[Guest margaret thatcher]

well i didn't know that.

i was taking the model as being like an aerial view of a rotational water sprinkler - the water appears to squirt out in arcs, with more curvature with faster rotation - the sideways velocity does not increase.

[o00o]

Imagine the universe is inside a cube. Now imagine you have a rotating laser. Although the beam's angular speed will be the the laser's spot should able to move faster than the speed of ligh. no ?

 

Imagine the universe is inside a cube. Now imagine you have a rotating laser. Although the beam's angular speed stay constant the laser's spot should be able to move faster than the speed of ligh if the walls are distant enough. no ?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o

[Guest Gary C]

There is an answer. In the article they referred to it's motion as "apparently superluminal".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion

[Guest margaret thatcher]

ah

 

i understand now.

eg:

 

"For an earthbound observer objects in the sky complete one revolution around the earth in 1 day. Proxima Centauri, which is the nearest star outside the Solar system, is about 4 light years away. On a geostationary view Alpha Centauri has a speed many times greater than "c" as the rim speed of an object moving in a circle is a product of the radius and angular speed. It is also possible on a geostatic view for objects such as comets to vary their speed from subluminal to superluminal and vice versa simply because the distance from the earth varies. Comets may have orbits which take them out to more than 1000 AU. Circumference of a circle radius 1000 AU is greater than one light day. In other words, a comet at such a distance is superluminal in a geostatic frame."

 

"...may appear to travel faster than light, but they do not convey energy or information faster than light, so they do not violate special relativity."

[GORDO]

i think it's more like radio waves don't actually have mass so they're not bound by the relativistic effects of speed.

[kaini]

ok so the article and qualified scientists were wrong and gordo is right

another thread successfully GORDO'd

[jules]

It's a giant baby in a womb floating through space.

 

that was like 9 years ago dude

[Guest abusivegeorge]

It's a giant baby in a womb floating through space.

 

that was like 9 years ago dude

 

That baby was the birh of 2010

[Bob Dylan]

It's Sylvester Stallone doing a backflip on top of a spike while Robocop carries a ghost up a mountain.

[Guest abusivegeorge]

Shhhh France wah

[Guest hahathhat]

i emitted a mysterious broadcast this morning; put it down to gyoza overload last gnite

[Bob Dylan]

Shhhh France wah

 

 

LOL

LOL

---

LOL

LOL

Optional={option} and content=LOL

 

LOL