Scratch

Actually, it more disproved the oscillating theory, where the universe continually expands and then collapses.  And yes, the universe is accelerating from one spot, indicating that a force is still driving it apart, which we call dark matter.

GlitchSprite wrote:

What about the big collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda

Everybody's at least a little worried about that, but:

A) It won't happen for couple million years.  I don't think you'll last that long.
B) The only thing most likely to happen is the exchange of gases.

The reason they are colliding is because of gravity.  It's inverse square law makes it stronger between our galaxy and Andromeda, which is stronger than the acceleration away from the central point considering how tiny the angle difference is between the galaxies.  It really doesn't mean that galaxies aren't accelerating.

Zelda123 wrote:

What happens when a star travels faster than the speed of light? What do we see?

NOTHING. The light never reaches us.

I commend all to take a look at this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/opinion/16greene.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Many of you may know Brian Greene from The Elegant Universe.

A new discovery shows that galaxies are moving even faster and farther apart from each other. Does this not strike a fatal blow in the face of the Big Bang Theory?

Every year we are "losing" more and more stars. The sky slowly loses its brightness.

Would you mind explaining how it strikes a fatal blow to the big bang theory?

markyparky56 wrote:

How can a star move faster than the speed of light? I though A star was just a huge burning ball of gases? I understand that the galaxy is expanding, but isn't everything moving roughly at the same speed?

No. All the stars are orbiting a (theoretical) black hole in the centre of the galaxy. There's one in the centre of every galaxy (theoretically).

markyparky56 wrote:

Calebxy_Test wrote:

markyparky56 wrote:

How can a star move faster than the speed of light? I though A star was just a huge burning ball of gases? I understand that the galaxy is expanding, but isn't everything moving roughly at the same speed?

No. All the stars are orbiting a (theoretical) black hole in the centre of the galaxy. There's one in the centre of every galaxy (theoretically).

Yes... so how can a star move faster than light, Theres nothing that travels faster than light (as far as I know.)

I don't know, I haven't read the article.

Andres-Vander wrote:

It's physically impossible for anything in the universe to go faster than the speed of light. What credibility does this article have if it claims that a star could go faster?

Well, I think it is possible if it's orbiting a black hole.

The reason you can't go faster than the speed of light is because energy has mass, so the more energy you use to go faster, the more mass you're creating, making you heavier. But if you used the gravity from a black hole to propel you forward then you wouldn't have that problem.

Well, mass is never created or destroyed, just gained or lost, so an object could gain plenty of mass through speed and achieve or pass lightspeed.  We don't know all of the universe's laws and we don't know a fraction of the universe, there could be objects vastly far away that move twice as fast.

The idea is plausible.  Maybe not too credible, but plausible nonetheless.

Also, I thought stars were created all the time through nebulae.

Last edited by Kileymeister (2011-01-25 17:19:20)

Kileymeister wrote:

Well, mass is never created or destroyed, just gained or lost, so an object could gain plenty of mass through speed and achieve or pass lightspeed.  We don't know all of the universe's laws and we don't know a fraction of the universe, there could be objects vastly far away that move twice as fast.

The idea is plausible.  Maybe not too credible, but plausible nonetheless.

Also, I thought stars were created all the time through nebulae.

I think you mean energy, not mass... I deny the plausibility of it though. We would have encountered it by now if it was so fast, for example notice the stars billions of miles away giving off their light to here.

AtomicBawm3 wrote:

Ok, now that I had time to read the article, I can tell you that both parties are right.  Light from other galaxies won't be able to reach us, but neither will the matter go faster than the speed of light.  Here's why:

c is celeritas, or the speed of light (as in the 'c' in E=mc^2)
Suppose that when the universe starts expanding, two galaxies start moving at 1/100 of c.  That means the the total acceleration apart is 2/100c. If they accelerate to 50/100 c or half the speed of light, light would no longer be able to travel from one to the other, yet neither galaxy is anywhere near the speed of light.  Get it?

Enlightenment! 

Andres-Vander wrote:

The Name Big Bang is not reflective of the actual event.

Its related to what started the expansion.