Can You Spot The Error ?

[bazwillrun]

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/important-image-captured-by-hubble

in the video narrative...

i had to wind it back a few times to check that i wasnt imagining what I heard

[sandyRoe]

Faster than the speed of light?

[bazwillrun]

yup

einstein would of be impressed with that statement and would have had to rethought most of his work

[Fitzer]

But it isn't wrong, the galaxies are being carried by expanding space rather than moving within space so the speed of light is no longer a limiting factor since, apparently, space itself is not subject to the constant. Whether or not they are appearing to recede from us at greater than light speed is a moot point, if they are then they will at some point disappear as the light the generate will no longer reach us.

[AB Editor]

Excellent. It's only in some cases though apparently Baz, so it's probably not too much of an issue! A few bad apples breaking the laws of physics isn't indicative of the entire universe going to pot :)

[bazwillrun]

Fitzer

he quite clearly states they are moving faster than light....theories predict certain issues with regards to the expanding universe, but as of now there is nothing known and can be proven to exceed the speed of light.

But if you know of any then i'm sure theres plenty of cosmologists and astro-physicists tha would love to hear from you !

[bazwillrun]

"As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises precipitously. If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."

[jim360]

Technically travelling beyond the speed of light is easy -- it is only information that is bound by that speed limit. So space itself can grow faster than light -- and, in the early Universe, did.

A more down-to-earth effect that you can see this sort of thing going on is if you measure the approximate speed of the contact point of a wavefront with the shore. Depending on the angle of approach, that point can move from any speed between the speed of the wave itself (when the wave is travelling parallel to the shore) and infinity (when it's hitting the shore all at once).

[LazyGun]

This might explain the concept a bit better. Einsteins Law is not being violated, if you accept that the cause of the speed of recession is the expansion of space itself.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/fyi-can-anything-move-faster-light

[bazwillrun]

I'll say it again

the narrator quite clearly and explicitly says "(galaxies) some travelling faster than the speed of light"
theories abound but....nothing yet has been measured or observed travelling faster than the speed of light by anybody or anything from planet earth.

Yes there are certain theories but nothing proven...yet

[jim360]

I was going to add that I hadn't seen the video so didn't know what he had said precisely. If it was "galaxies moving faster than the speed of light" that is wrong, but in general the statement that "X is moving faster than light" depends on what X is before you can say if it is true or not. If X is anything that carries information, or mass, then it's false -- but if now then it may well be true.

[bluemoon1]

Thanks LazyGun for that article, it explained it even to me

[jim360]

"nothing yet has been measured travelling faster than the speed of light" -- Like I have said before, this statement is technically wrong. The phase velocity of light is very often faster than the speed of light itself -- indeed, it's always greater than or equal to the speed of light. This effect has been measured and aobserved -- but the phase velocity carries no information, so doesn't matter.

[bazwillrun]

If it was "galaxies moving faster than the speed of light" that is wrong,

exactly

yes i know of quantum tunnelling, and scharnost etc etc but these all rely on differnet standpoints and time frame references and all sorts of "jiggery pokery" to balance the books a bit like einsteins cosmological constant, but to all intents and purposes and accepted in the scientific community there is nothing know absolutely and unequivocally proven to travel faster than light which is accepted as 186282mps in a vacuum.

if there is then i'd like to see the proof

[jim360]

Again it depends on what you mean by the statement "nothing can travel faster than light". But the phenomenon of certain effects having a speed faster than light is well-known, and is absolutely not jiggery-pokery:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)

[LazyGun]

The narrative of the clip does not state the galaxies are moving through space at faster than the speed of light, Baz.

The narrative, quite explicitly, states "that these galaxies, whilst standing absolutely still, are racing away from us, in some cases, faster than the speed of light". The narrator then goes on to further qualify that statement by continuing "The space-time grows every larger by the minute".
So the reason for this apparent regression at greater than the speed of light is not because of the movement of the galaxies through the vacuum of space, but all because of the expansion of space-time.

[jim360]

See also http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406277a0.html for an observed and measured example of superluminal travel. But again, the effect is one that is in some senses abstract -- no information is transferred.

[bazwillrun]

"The phase velocity of electromagnetic radiation may – under certain circumstances (for example anomalous dispersion) – exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but this does not indicate any superluminal information or energy transfer. It was theoretically described"

its words like may (even that under certain circumstances) and seem etc that say it all.

[jim360]

I give up. The point is that if LG is right about what was said, the video is making no error -- but you are in thinking that there was one. Things travelling faster than light are far more common than you realise.

[bazwillrun]

"are racing away from us, in some cases, faster than the speed of light"

seems pretty clear to me what he said and the context in which he said it.
as far as i'm concerned the next sentence is pretty irlevant coming after the fact, if he had said tha before his faster than light statement then thats a slightly different matter

[bazwillrun]

"Things travelling faster than light are far more common than you realise. "

no they are not

theories suggest there may be things travellin....etc etc, i still have yet to see proof of such..and not just myself