The reason I ask questions is because you are right, I don't understand.

So, can you answer the questions and explain to me what the nature of space and time are that they can be said to "move faster than the speed of light?"

If they move, what do they move through? What is moving?

Can stars and planets and galaxies move faster than the speed of light?

If the universe is not the stars and planets and galaxies, then what is it?

Space and time?

What is space and time? (I don't believe they exist without matter and energy.) But if you say they do, then please describe what they are. What is their nature and makeup without energy and matter?

As far as your following question:

"How can you say something is not possible when you don't understand it? "


That is the same question I get from Christians about God and The Bible.

They just say I don't understand it. They are right.

I don't understand ridiculous.

The black hole example is the cleanest explanation I can think of. The cosmic event horizon is basically the same thing.

You apparently just need to accept that some things are over your head. You don't understand the expansion the universe has been experiencing since the big bang?

From small to large? It doesn't get much simpler than that.

That means you don't understand Hubble, doppler, or any of the topics we have discussed in these threads at great length.

Why do you think black holes are black? The light inside isn't any different.

Without formal physics training I bet you think all of it is "ridiculous". And they aren't "claims. They are basic physics textbook science. I think Hubble discovered it around 1911 or so but I am just guessing on the year.

You don't even know why they named the Hubble Space Telescope after him.

You are avoiding my direct questions.

Explain what space is that it can travel faster than the speed of light.

Explain what time is that it can travel faster than the speed of light.




What I don't understand is your claim that space and time can travel faster than the speed of light.

(The big bang is still a theory that I have not completely accepted as gospel truth yet.)

If this is actually TRUE, then please explain the nature of this "space" and this "time."

Then tell me what it is moving through.

And tell me what is between the galaxies. Nothing? Empty space? What?

You are right, this I do not understand. Please explain it. It sounds perfectly ridiculous to me.

Okay, and so I shall bow to your all knowing God-like wisdom and ask you to please explain the nature of this "space" and "time" that travels faster than the speed of light and ask you to explain how it does that, and what is it traveling through?

What is this faster-than-light movement of the expansion of the universe relative to? Other universes?

If the universe is not just the stars and galaxies and planets then what else is it?

What is the name of this time and space (or energy) that moves faster than light?

I already answered but I will go more slowly.

Take a black hole.

The gravity distorts space/time (basic Albert Einstein)

The gravity sucks space/time into the hole (it actually distorts it but we obviously need to keep it simple here)

The light in the hole wants to get out. It travels through space/time to get out.

The light is moving up and out of the hole at the speed of light because that is the only speed in which it travels.

The space/time around the light is traveling down into the hole faster than the speed of light because the gravity is so strong.

Since the light is traveling OUT at the speed of light but IN faster than the speed of light (like the canoe in the river) it is actually traveling backwards so it cannot get out.

This is why the hole is BLACK.

This is an example of how space/time works.

This is an example of space/time traveling at faster than the speed of light.

I already gave this example in plain English.

The nature of space/time is the fabric of the universe. It's existence has no relation to matter or energy but is affected by it.

It is thought that the welling of dark energy MAY cause the "push" that causes the universe to expand between galaxies but we do not actually know what dark energy consists of.

They aren't claims? They most certainly are! I am addressing YOUR claim that space and time are moving faster than the speed of light in this universe as it expands.

What this implies is that the universe is inside of some kind of vacuum or bubble which is expanding and this expansion force (whatever it is) is dragging along all the matter and energy (light etc.) with it.

IFF this is true, then "space" is not just "empty space" but some kind of plasma or energy field, or dark matter, that holds these galaxies and other matter in place in relation to each other.




That's irrelevant.

Hubble discovered and explained the expanding universe... about a hundred years ago. That's relevant.

Your logic is simply too wrong to comment on. The use of the term "plasma" is meaningless in your context and "energy field" doesn't mean anything.

Go look up Einstein and space/time so you have somewhere to start.

Gravity holds the mass in place in relation to each other.

Space/time moving faster than c is a fact ... and an old one at that.

I prefer "distorts." I understand that. There is no need to purposely talk down to me as if I am stupid.

Keeping it simple does not require changing the explanation to something that does not make actual sense.

I do not understand how gravity can suck "space or time" into a hole, since space and time are not really "things."

What I have heard is that a black hold sucks matter into it, not space and time. This makes sense. Gravity effects matter, not space and time.

When a black hold sucks the matter in, that is what distorts the space and the time because space and time are dependent on matter.

Without matter, space and time do not exist.

What is irrelevant is whether or not I know why someone named the Hubble Space Telescope after him.

Apparently a lot of new things have been discovered and learned in the last 100 years.

I just watched "How the universe works" and it is a little more updated than what you are talking about. Scientists are not all in agreement about the nature of the universe, black holes, etc. so I wouldn't take all that to the bank just yet. They haven't figured it all out yet.

They even spoke about a force (besides gravity) that possibly holds things together and keeps galaxies from flying apart and stated that dark matter is everywhere.

It seems to me, Jeannie, that you may be carrying preconceived notions that are interfering with your ability to understand what he is saying. You seem intent on pigeon-holing the components of this conversation into models that already grasp - those models and those preconceived notions might seem like useful tools in understanding which have served you well in the paste, but they might be obstacles to your understanding in this conversation.

I think metalwing is being generous.

Every so often I make scientifically or mathematically valid claims and I am challenged by someone to 'explain it to them so it makes sense to them', but they lack years of education that would be helpful for them to understand my claims. They also take the approach that if I cannot explain it to them, they are going to loudly insist that its wrong.

Why should I even give them the time of day? I charge $25+/hr to teach people some of these topics. I'm happy to explain some things as best I can (without investing to much time in relearning the topic) for free, because I really do believe that it benefits our society. But if someone is not willing to really think about what I'm saying, not willing to let go of preconceived notions, not willing to crack open a book, and they clearly don't know what they are talking about, yet they insist if I can't explain it to them so they can understand it, then it must be wrong.... I mean, why bother?

Another problem here, from my POV, is that one cannot truly and properly explain some of these topics using english. Mathematics is absolutely necessary to really express and understand some of these principals.

It is quite possible that the truth of the matter would not 'make sense' to you.

It may not be the process of simplifying that introduces ideas you find senseless.



Weird, isn't it?




It is well known that a useful model of gravity is exactly that: gravity works by effecting space and time.

Here's a fun game:

Suppose just for a moment that space can expand faster than c.

What might that look like?

If I was on a set of train tracks that went on for un-imaginable distance... and I was standing at one place on the track, and there were various other people standing or walking or riding trains at different places on the tracks, and the tracks started expanding (in the same direction that the tracks run) - what might that look like? How would it effect different people on the tracks? How would it effect the tracks themselves? If you had a super-high powered telescope, and you looked down the tracks at different people along them - what would you see happening?

so basically, since they (the scientists) can't be wrong, they invent more theories about the first theory that could be wrong, in order to keep the unprovable alive?... sometimes these theories are getting to be the same as religion, just getting further and further from the truth, which nobody knows...

Where do you get that from? Nothing, anywhere, that anyone said implies that scientists can't be wrong.

Science is all about finding out the ways that you've been wrong, and making it better.


Really, Moe. Why would you say such a thing?

This is a real question.

How do you arrive at that?

Every scientific claim is completely open and available for you to examine and reconcile with the evidence.

Some of them require a lot of work to develop the tools and knowledge necessary to do so.

Sometimes it takes a great deal of patience, diligence, and a bit of humility.

massagetrade,

It does not take years of study to know that "space" and "time" are not actual material "things" that can be sucked into a black hole.

If it 'appears' that space and time are distorted around a black hole, or "sucked into it" that does not mean that there is actually some "material" thing called space or time (or space/time) that is affected by gravity and can be sucked into a black hole.

It is matter that is sucked into the hole, not space and time.

If you believe that space and time can be sucked into a black hole without matter, then please explain the nature of space and time that allows it to be affected by gravity without the presence of matter.

Matter IS sucked into a black hole right? Not (allegedly) just space and time.

When someone makes a claim in this thread and another person asks for them to back it up with an explanation, they should respond with something better than "you just don't understand" or "you just don't have a degree in Physics therefor you are too ignorant to understand."

I have actually been told that I needed years of Bible study in order to really understand God and Jesus and all of that.

That is not true about religion and it is not true about science. It is just a way to avoid the hard yet very simple questions.

You said:



I don't believe that in the slightest, especially if you are describing space as being "empty" and having no mass or matter in it.

Neither of you have given any kind of valid description of what space would be like without matter and what properties (empty)space might have that would allow it to be affected by gravity.

Same goes with time. Time is dependent on how matter moves in relation to other matter.

Take all matter and energy out of the universe and guess what? There is no space or time.

I also think that dark matter is probably everywhere and is invisible. If that is true and if that is what "space" is made of, then that could explain why it could be affected by gravity.

In short, I don't think "empty space" even exists at all.

Affect Vs. Effect

Affect and effect are two words that are commonly confused.

"Affect" is usually a verb meaning "to influence".

The drug did not affect the disease.

"Effect" is usually a noun meaning "result".

Which word do you mean to use here:



Example:

If gravity effects space and time, then it creates it. The result of gravity is space and time.

If gravity affects space and time then it can suck it into a black hole.

Should? Who says? Maybe you are stating your personal preferences?



If that's how you interpret the statements made in this thread, there is little more I can do for you.

If you really want to understand, you have many choices. You can re-examine your own beliefs. You can re-read this thread carefully and try to understand it from new angles. You can get yourself some books and read them - I believe Lex mentioned an author that might interest you.




If you believe that, then I cannot help you.



You inferred my meaning correctly, judging from your response:




You seem to think that gravity acts on matter, and that gravity cannot act on space that is devoid of matter.


Your know too much...





...and you ask the wrong questions.

Here is some good introductory reading. This isn't specifically for JB and her recent questions - this deals more generally with the big bang and background radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#Relationship_to_the_Big_Bang