Solar System Crash

hmm...I don't see why at the speed of light I would start to stretch out...if there's no wind resistance, or gravitational pull couldn't I just go infinitely faster without a problem? There wouldn't be another force pulling against the increase of speed to "stretch" me. Correct me if i'm wrong b/c i'm not educated on this.

You are wrong because you're thinking in terms of physics. We're talking theory of relativity here. You would appear to be stretched out to someone standing on Earth, but to yourself you would look the same size.

Both ya's are incorrect. Because at the speed of light things with mass become stretched out from the force of the speed where light photons turn into waves. Literally your atoms will disentegrate attempting to turn into waves because you cannot maintain mass @ the speed of light. Its not a matter of size or getting to that fast, its that if you do you'll basically deterioate. That is why light isn't tangible basically.

As for sucking in. Very slowly after a super super long time (High billions) of years then you'd get sucked into the sun if it didn't change. Sun will die in 5billion years.

oh ok, I can sort of understand that...the whole intangible thing.

why would you disentegrate if you gain mass the faster you move?

Actually sorry i'm incorrect. Time slows down for you and you become heavy. @ 10% speed of light you are 1% heavyer @ 60% you are 2x heavier, @ 99% you are 100x heavier. Time slows down to a crawl. Approximately 1 hr @ speed of light = 2 weeks earth time. Sorry I was wrong.

well i think you are all wrong. Mass generated at the speed of light, is a theory that has only been tested on this planet or on paper. No one has ever tested the effects in the vacumm of space.

Thier are many flaws in all these quantam theories. I believe it will be possible for humans to travel at light speeds, bending time, stretching the fabric of space and hopping through a worm hole to the other side of where ever you want, guilded by a laser that keeps you on track(because it would be hard to steer at light speed).

But until we come up with better and safer spaceshuttle/ship that gets like 1million mpg.
The anti grav has to be invented, along with a wide range spec-trometer that can read all the variaties of radiation and effevtivly shield our wippy bodies so we dont get cancer or grow a third limb. Also an endless supply of energy would be needed at all times.
It is inevitable that this planet is about to crap out on us, and I think people know this(but are protecting our 'best interests') and then, where do we go? I dont think thiers room for everyone on the SpaceStation.

Carl Sagen said it, we live in a solar system(SS) , our SS is one of over 10 billion SS in the Milky Way galaxy. The Milky way is one of over 100billion galaxies, just like ours, in this vast spiral nebulua. Thats alot of GD stars!

We all assume that human life was spawned from the foul swampy pools of the past, or we were purposly placed here for a reason, we're a virus, the most leathal of all. The truth of the matter, I think we used to live on Mars, and we screwed up the eccosystem just like we hav here in our petrol world. Then at the last minute a few thousand of the most intelligent people of Mars were sent here, to start a fire, or two.

I could go on for days on this Solar System Crash, and the whats , why and how long we got. I hav tons of urls, covering everything you ever wanted to know about space, and "how I'm getting there" in my 442 Olds. Lol! with premium I imagine.

You have a few flaws. Einstein proved thru theory of relativity about weight added with speed and that has been proven in general with regular physics on earth.

Wormholes very unlikely

The number you pulled out for galaxies and such, multiply that by another 10,000,000,000,000,000 and maybe thaats how many stars we got out there. As for a virus, look up how the moon was made. A large object 1/3 the size of earth hit us in a very unique angel blasting off the dead soil and giving us a moon that protects us while uplifting and giving more of an iron core. We coulda been some strain on that , the first single celled organism sent off by an 'alien' ancestor :)

Humans will never be able to go the speed of light because it is physically impossible to create something that will propell us to such a speed in general AND in the lifetime of a human. Even if we had ion-pulse engines (we have them now basically consistantly pushes out a lil bit of energy but can go for practicaly tons of years. strong enough to make a piece of paper shift a lil bit basically) wouldn't get us to the speed of light for atleast a couple thousand years. If not more.

well i think you are all wrong. Mass generated at the speed of light, is a theory that has only been tested on this planet or on paper. No one has ever tested the effects in the vacumm of space.

How do you propose mass is effected by a vacuum? It sounds to me like you have a lot of ideas, none of which have a scientific basis.

You have a few flaws. Einstein proved thru theory of relativity about weight added with speed and that has been proven in general with regular physics on earth.

Einstein wasnt quite right on all his theories. Theory of relativity, and his E=mc2 that developed the Bomb was the most accurate. Everything else was just that, theory.

Wormholes very unlikely.
It is possible, we need to find out how to open and close then or create one in general.
worm holes (http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/users/gabor/black_holes/slide9.html)

The number you pulled out for galaxies and such, multiply that by another 10,000,000,000,000,000 and maybe thaats how many stars we got out there .
The number I pulled out of my ass was what OUR little spiral galaxy has, not the entire universe. Thier are a goople of stars(thats any # with an infinite # of 0's). In fact the stars we see at night are not just one star, they are clusters, or galaxys, just like our milky way. I know it gets confusing. THis is a spiral Galaxy like ours, Spiral Galaxy (http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2005/12/images/y/formats/large_web.jpg) and heres where we live Milky Ways (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/25/)



Humans will never be able to go the speed of light because it is physically impossible to create something that will propell us to such a speed in general AND in the lifetime of a human.
Thats what they said about flying too. Nothing is impossible. We have came a long way in the last 100 yrs. It is physically possible, just not in an atmosphere with the mass of our planet. Just wait and see, in your/our lifetime we will have light speed travel.

Ion pulse engines are pretty weak. I'm not trying to start anything, I just think we all need to be a little more optamistic and open to new and unexplained phenomenons. Just look at these Galaxies (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/25/image/a)

More facts, our planet will die out before the system will crash in a few billion billion years. Heres a Crash (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2000/34/image/a) galaxy.
The photos that hubble or any other deep field telescope takes is a view into the past, way back in the past, like 400 billion yrs(or more), if we could be there right now, it wouldnt even look the same or may be gone altogether. Just remember, anythings possible and keep you eyes in the stars.

And I wouldn't worry aobut the earth crashing into the sun anytime. First of all 1. it would need to have a decaying orbit to do so. Just because the sun and earth exert gravitational force on each other doesn't mean that they're neccisarily getting closer. As long as the earths orbit is in a circle (or close enough) it's accelerating.. becasue it's constantly changing direction which is the definiton of acceleration.
Secondly, the sun will die long before the earth has a chance to travel the 93 million miles there.

like 400 billion yrs

nooooo... the generally accepted age of the known universe is ~15bln years :)

hahahaha holy shit, i thought i had an idea of how small we were..then i looked at the hubble shot of all the galaxies....makes me question my whole perspective on life...damn!

very intresting, i want to hear more

Actually sorry i'm incorrect. Time slows down for you and you become heavy. @ 10% speed of light you are 1% heavyer @ 60% you are 2x heavier, @ 99% you are 100x heavier. Time slows down to a crawl. Approximately 1 hr @ speed of light = 2 weeks earth time. Sorry I was wrong.
Yeah, I don't know what you were talking about. Light isn't matter that's been stretched out, it's radiation in the form of a wave.

Yeah, I don't know what you were talking about. Light isn't matter that's been stretched out, it's radiation in the form of a wave.


Uh, what I said about light has been proven in physics and I have never heard of it being called radiation. If you can find some articles to support where you got that I'd be very interested. I'm not saying you are wrong, just thats what I've been taught and learned from multiple sources.

Einstein wasnt quite right on all his theories. Theory of relativity, and his E=mc2 that developed the Bomb was the most accurate. Everything else was just that, theory.
[/QUOTE]
As one of the master-minds of the Human Race, I tend to lean towards his theories as likely-fact. Not fact-based. Likely fact, meaning its more plausible then not that he is correct in what he has discovered, thats why I use his references. I want to clear that up.

It is possible, we need to find out how to open and close then or create one in general.
worm holes (http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/users/gabor/black_holes/slide9.html)

Oh I'm very aware they are POSSIBLE, I personally doubt there existance really, so I won't argue, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.


The number I pulled out of my ass was what OUR little spiral galaxy has, not the entire universe. Thier are a goople of stars(thats any # with an infinite # of 0's). In fact the stars we see at night are not just one star, they are clusters, or galaxys, just like our milky way. I know it gets confusing. THis is a spiral Galaxy like ours, Spiral Galaxy (http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2005/12/images/y/formats/large_web.jpg) and heres where we live Milky Ways (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/25/)


Alright, it seemed liek you were saying there were a fewer amount of stars. But there isn't an infinite amount of stars. It is finite.


Thats what they said about flying too. Nothing is impossible. We have came a long way in the last 100 yrs. It is physically possible, just not in an atmosphere with the mass of our planet. Just wait and see, in your/our lifetime we will have light speed travel.


Right, nothing is impossible in theory. But I find it highly unlikely and unprobably and uncapable for us to achieve light-speed flight and such. Its how I view physics. So again thats opinion, can't argue for or against.


Ion pulse engines are pretty weak. I'm not trying to start anything, I just think we all need to be a little more optamistic and open to new and unexplained phenomenons. Just look at these Galaxies (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/25/image/a)


Ion pulse engines will take a long tim before they get to extreme speeds. 10's of thousands of years really.


More facts, our planet will die out before the system will crash in a few billion billion years. Heres a Crash (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2000/34/image/a) galaxy.
The photos that hubble or any other deep field telescope takes is a view into the past, way back in the past, like 400 billion yrs(or more), if we could be there right now, it wouldnt even look the same or may be gone altogether. Just remember, anythings possible and keep you eyes in the stars.

As the other person said, the universe has been classified at 13.2 billion years old. No where near 400billion. Maybe you read 400 million somewhere. :) Just a lil FYI.

You are fun to discuss this with.

Alright, it seemed liek you were saying there were a fewer amount of stars. But there isn't an infinite amount of stars. It is finite.

I was wrong on the goople, its more like 100million 0's. It was something Carl Sagen had said in one of his books, and on TV.

Right, nothing is impossible in theory. But I find it highly unlikely and unprobably and uncapable for us to achieve light-speed flight and such. Its how I view physics. So again thats opinion, can't argue for or against.

We as humans cant go light speed(LS). But the space shuttle when launched travels 3500 feet per second, at alot of G's(8-9). So when your in space, if the ship just jumps to LS , you would be smashed from the excessive G's. But if this LS is acheived at a more tolerable rate, which will be more than on a planet, then we can travel how ever fast we want. You just want a damn good steering mech or you might run into something like a planet.

Ion pulse engines are cheap crap. well not cheap to build. A good idea, maybe more Ion engines would get going faster...

As the other person said, the universe has been classified at 13.2 billion years old. No where near 400billion. Maybe you read 400 million somewhere. :) Just a lil FYI. You are fun to discuss this with.

I heard 14billion years old on Discovery Science, but they hav found stars that are 400 billion years old, and they dont know why or how this could happen. Straight up!

I am very interested in the science of things, esspecially space and things that could take us there. My dream is to build a ship and go around picking up scraped satallites(with thier gold & platinum) and sell the scrap to build a bigger Salvageship.

When they junk out Hubble, I'll rebuild it(with scrap) and move it as far away from earth as possible. Then I think we will see the bigger/better picture of things. We are so insignificant in the vast Universe. And just think thier cold be multiples of them, but thats another thread altogether.

Uh, what I said about light has been proven in physics and I have never heard of it being called radiation. If you can find some articles to support where you got that I'd be very interested. I'm not saying you are wrong, just thats what I've been taught and learned from multiple sources.
Uh.. look it up in any basic science textbook. Electromagnetic radiation, in the form of a propagating wave with electric and magnetic properties, and 'light' is simply the part of the spectrum that we can see.

Lets not forget, according to the theory of relativity, and others, light speed would be impossible for anything which has a mass because 1. it would take an infinite amount of energy to get that fast and 2. the mass of the object would become infinite... which doesnt bode well for the universe. Or the object.

That said, even light speed isn't very fast at all in comparison to the size of the known universe. Even the nearest star system (Alpha Centauri) would take four and a half years to get there.

I sure hope humanity has the ingenutiy to find the cosmic "loophole" to travel great great distances in a short period of time, otherwise, i fear we're doomed to our 9 planets here :(

*edit* I found a really good scale for your guys' minds to chew on; If the earth was the size of a period (0.5mm) then our sun would be 5.4 cm across, and they would be about 5.9m apart, that's about 19 feet or so. At this scale, Alpha Centauri (remember, this is the CLOSEST STAR to us) would be 890 miles away.

hmm i doubt the theory of relativity is accurate in regards to things of mass not being able to acheive light speed. Although I know nothing. And the whole sound barrier thing baffles me...anyone care to explain that one?

I heard 14billion years old on Discovery Science, but they hav found stars that are 400 billion years old, and they dont know why or how this could happen. Straight up!


I have never heard this, can you provide a link or proof of this, since thats a little hard to believe.

And the whole sound barrier thing baffles me...anyone care to explain that one?
What about it? Just in general?

Well, the sound barrier really isn't a 'barrier' anymore. Back in the 40's and 50's, scientists found out that planes could not go faster than a certain speed, which was deemed the 'sound barrier'. In fact, the more they increased the power the smaller the change in speed. But finally, I think it was Mach found out that after a certain point past this 'barrier' that this drag dropped down and it was in fact possible to go past this barrier.

hmm i doubt the theory of relativity is accurate in regards to things of mass not being able to acheive light speed. Although I know nothing. And the whole sound barrier thing baffles me...anyone care to explain that one?

Special relativity ;)

Link us the 400 billion year old star, never heard of a thing ever. I think its false.

Light being radiation how you explained, link please to an explanation or a book to back it up

distance of space: its been aroud for 13.2 billion years, things tend to get spread out :/

light speed is unachievable for humans physically and capability wise with the powers that we have, ion or jet. Even @ light-speed we'd have to be able to literally view things faster-then-light to make sure our path is clear to travel. Goign at 186,000 miles/second is quick and even if you look and dont go towards a star, there are tons and tons of comets and asteroids out there that, if not relativly close (couple of AU's) near the a star then - guess what, you made contact with a nearly pitch-black asteroid 5 miles in diameter. And there are a ton out there to-boot.

Limited to our 9 planets? Try two:
Mercury = too hot/cold extreme weather, intolerable to live nor get there
venus = too hot & poisonous. +700*F acid rain etc
earth = not livable forever
mars = too cold/hostile plausible livable with A LOT of terraforming
jupiter = gravity too strong, too extreme in chemical compound, no rock surface & liquid nitrgen center
saturn = ref to jupiter but smaller
uranus = too cold, -250* F, ice on surface is harder then steel on earth
pluto = technically a really big snowball not really a planet, too small, 1/3 size of earth, barely bigger then the moon.

moons of formentioned planets = Too far away, when go behind the planet its complete dark for a long time, too cold and then not warm enough in the center asides the fact it would take YEARS to get to jupiter.

The satellite challenger(?) left in 1979 and just NOW its getting out of our solar system.... yeah... we have a long way to go.

Only way for humans to live for an exceptionally long time = find a way to transport to diff places in the universe w/ low-energy source + Earth-ish planet found that is stable. (in my mind)

It takes 18 months to get to mars. fyi.

FYI - To get the reall skinny on the cosmos, check out the DISCOVERY SCIENCE Channel tonight at 9pm(15mins) east would be 10pm, west would be 8-7pm donno. But the show is called, as if anyhting else COSMOS . HURRY! IT repeats later on tonight. The topic is light speed/travel , how appropriate.

Light being radiation how you explained, link please to an explanation or a book to back it up

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

Link us the 400 billion year old star, never heard of a thing ever. I think its false.

Light being radiation how you explained, link please to an explanation or a book to back it up

distance of space: its been aroud for 13.2 billion years, things tend to get spread out :/.........


OKOKOK! I was wrong about 400 billion, it was 40 billion. I read it on Chandras web site earlier this year. I also saw a 2005 show on Discoery Science which also talked about the anomilly concerning Chandra tele. It might have been some fluke or another anomilly they were experiencing, I dont remember any explanation. But I am unable to find the EXACT article on Chandras web site. Also read it in a Astronomy magazine from may-june 2005.

Heres a LINK (http://xrtpub.harvard.edu/resources/faq/cosmology/cosmology-4.html) discussing the verability of the universes age. It might not ever be determind. You cant messure what you cant see, and at the rate of expantion images weather they are visable light ,or any other wavelengths, images get distorted.

This is a Page (http://xrtpub.harvard.edu/resources/faq/cosmology/cosmology-main.html) with some more Q&A you all might want to read.

This article talks about Einsteins (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/12/text/) theory of the universe collapsing, 30 billion years from now, its a really long time before total collapse.

light speed is unachievable for humans physically and capability wise with the powers that we have, ion or jet. Even @ light-speed we'd have to be able to literally view things faster-then-light to make sure our path is clear to travel. Goign at 186,000 miles/second is quick and even if you look and dont go towards a star, there are tons and tons of comets and asteroids out there that, if not relativly close (couple of AU's) near the a star then - guess what, you made contact with a nearly pitch-black asteroid 5 miles in diameter. And there are a ton out there to-boot.

Yes at this time we hav limited speed capabilities. As soon as the gravitron gets invented though, we'd loose all mass, allowing us to travel lightspeed. And the superpowerful comp to guide through the stars/asteroids in hiding. We about hav the universe maped out, so it will be fiesable in a few years to map out a route to anywhere.

I WILL find the article(s) still either way, and post it (ASAP). Didnt mean to stir up a hornets nest. Lol. i'm not into missinformation, thank you.


Another place it might be found is here (http://adswww.harvard.edu/) but I didnt have time to search myself. Been really busy today with work, and all the clean up I had to do from last nights storms that came through my way. But I'm on top of things! XI

Gravitron eh? seems farfetched, but hey, i'm willing to look into it. But like i said before, even AT lightspeed, it'll take far too long to go long distances.

I guess what I don't understand is the "sonic boom"...whats that all about?

I guess what I don't understand is the "sonic boom"...whats that all about?
It's a good one.. let me see if I can explain clearly (I'm pretty high at the moment). So sorry if this doesn't make sense.

When objects, specifically aircraft, travel fast through air they're creating pressure waves all around them. These waves travel at the speed of sound. Because aircraft are going so fast, and once they approach a certain speed (Mach 1 (~761 mph)) the aircraft is beginning to go faster than the pressure waves it's creating. These waves therefore can't move out of the of each other and get 'squished' together into one giant pressure wave. This wave eventually 'pops' and what you are hearing is a giant shock wave moving air. The low 'boom' sound is what most people hear, but in reality the sound of the 'boom' caused by the waves is more like a sharp 'crack' near the actual 'pop'.

Gravitron eh? seems farfetched, but hey, i'm willing to look into it. But like i said before, even AT lightspeed, it'll take far too long to go long distances.

Ya Gravitron. Havent you heard of the Magnetron ? The thing that makes your microwave get hot and cook, using microwave radiation. The Magnetron was invented for radar, in the 40-50's, for Naval ships/boats I beleive. This explains how the Magnetron (http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/magnetron.html) works.

Here a pic of two Magnetrons http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/images/mag_section.gif

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/imgwav/magnetronop.gif

So the gravitron would use something more powerful, like x-rays or gamma rays. Its all just theory(my theory) right now. Until the details are worked out, like keeping the radiation from escaping and cooking people. The/a particle accellerator would probley be used to contain the energy and maintain the energy constant. But the particle accellerator is another thread/topic altogether.

We humans of earth are still in the dino age, we have came a long way in the last 50 years, and everyday we advance a little more.
Right now I'm working on pulse detonation engines, the most efficient engines todate.
I understand what your saying about the whole lightspeed travel, it still takes years to get anywhere. Wormholes thats the only way. Now we just need to learn how to open(create one) and close one. Then we send a loud ass radio transmitter through and listen to space and see where it went.

Space is the place!

OK, to update the guys on the 40 billion year old star, the guys name was David Meniuos (last name isnt spelled right) who works for NASA. I'm still searching for the article tho, i'm getting a lot of reading done. My eyes are about to bleed. Lol.

Just an update on the 'Age of the Universe' heres some More links that may clearify this mysterious age thing, or may not, but anyway here they are and Enjoy.

this is from 95, kinda old.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/age.html

This one tells how they measured the age
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

More formulas on measuring
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/age.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html

My theory is we can only see hav of the universe, to the center. And because of all the radiation(and other light waves) interferance, and the limitations of our telescopes.

So I'll go out on a limb here and say, I think the universe is around 30-40billion years old. And I'd bet in the next couple years they will confirm this age, then down the road it'll change again. Remember you cant measure what you cant see.

Oh and heres some more on solar collapse and the age of the universe.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/03-ss5.htm

still slinging that theory xero? I dont believe it either, even though i saw the show too :)

My theory is we can only see hav of the universe, to the center.

Those are exactly the stars we need to view, being the first created. The universe started from a point of singularity and expanded outward, hence the oldest stars at the center.

That being said, measuring the age of the oldest stars is only one of the methods used to determine the age of the universe.

So I'll go out on a limb here and say, I think the universe is around 30-40billion years old. And I'd bet in the next couple years they will confirm this age, then down the road it'll change again. Remember you cant measure what you cant see.

I'd move back toward the trunk, that limb is going to snap.

You can be confident that the universe is between 13 and 14 billion years old.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0302/11map/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1950403.stm

Those are exactly the stars we need to view, being the first created. The universe started from a point of singularity and expanded outward, hence the oldest stars at the center.

That being said, measuring the age of the oldest stars is only one of the methods used to determine the age of the universe.

I still say they havnt even seen the center yet. Why is it that the Hubble takes "Most" of these photos but cant look at pluto which is billions of LYs closer than the stars that are 14 byo?

Today they say 13-14 billion years, but they'll change their minds, very very soon. :)

Which what I was refering to(the oldest stars 30-40billion years) they are in OUR galaxy, not the center(or what ever it is they see) of the suposed universe.

But everyones intitled to their opinion, I hav mine(right or wrong) and you hav yours :) Thats what makes us humans so unique and driven to invent.

fair enough, my friend.)

Do they know at what rate the universe is constantly expanding at though? If they know that, then they should be able to develope a more exact estimate of the age... But like you said, if the huble telescope can't even see pluto then how is it able to see all these other stars?... They are probably still a lot farther from discovering the "true" center of the universe than they think they are...

Space isnt infinite, its still getting larger from the Big Bang

thats logically impossible, as long as you dont call a smaller sphere inside infinity the universe

Do they know at what rate the universe is constantly expanding at though? If they know that, then they should be able to develope a more exact estimate of the age... But like you said, if the huble telescope can't even see pluto then how is it able to see all these other stars?... They are probably still a lot farther from discovering the "true" center of the universe than they think they are...

Stars are quite bright

Blackholes eat light!
Even at the center of the universe, so how can one anyone see the actual center... :dunno:

Who knows how old it is lets just hope it holds up another few 100k years!

One day it will all come tumbling down, or up .. what a Solar System crash that will be, hope I'm not there!

I don’t think we know that we haven’t hit another galaxy besides our because ours is so vast that the other galaxy may already be it is half way through ours already and we don’t realize that it is really that close to hitting our part of the galaxy.