|
||||||||
Space and Astronomy Thread |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#3076 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
So for interstellar travel - time dilation would be something relevant to take into account when estimating the ages of the spaceship occupants when arriving at various stellar systems having travelled close to the speed of light during the course of the trip.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#3077 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,549
|
Quote:
Good call.
I'm not a big fan of his documentaries but here, ad libbing, he was on great form. +1I've been thinking a lot about gravitational waves and this video kind of confirmed it. LIGO was essentially a highly-advanced seismometer, but where all of the seismic data has to be removed so that we can concentrate on the 'background noise'. Considering the cacophony that their supercomputers are having to sift through it bodes very well for future space-based gravitational-wave observatories. The Hubble Space Telescope was a huge improvement over ground-based observatories, even though the atmosphere represents a relatively low-noise medium that adaptive optics can do a great job of attenuating. Even the human eye does a good job of picking stars out of the night sky. Gravitational waves on the other hand seem to be almost lost among the sounds of the Earth. The benefits of sending a GWO into orbit will be enormous. Full Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkyZvrHgOw |
|
|
|
|
|
#3078 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,549
|
Quote:
If I may..
If you were in interstellar space, for example, more time would have passed compared to that measured on Earth. And if you had been travelling along with the wave at the speed of light then no time would have seemed to have passed at all. Is that what you meant, MinaH? [Edit] It's fairly meaningless to equate light-years of distance to years of light travel, in my opinion. It completely misses the point that spacetime only conforms to human norms on human scales of space and time. It adds nothing to say, for example, that this distant collision between two black holes happened at the same time that stromatolites were the dominant lifeform on Earth, and it simply isn't true. Simultaneity, especially at such enormous distances, is an illusion. It assumes a universal 'now' that doesn't exist. Quote:
WhatJoeThinks: Yes I think so. There is something called time dilation which means the faster you go the slower are your clocks relative to the "slower" reference frames. So if you were surfing the gravity wave at the speed of light you wouldn't age 1.3 billion years, I don't think you would age at all. But I am not sure you could physically be accelerated up to the speed of light only towards and close to it - so there would be some aging.
So for example super-accurate timepieces have been shown to be behind in time (running slow) after having travelled on the space shuttle or after having taken a number of trips on aircraft. So for interstellar travel - time dilation would be something relevant to take into account when estimating the ages of the spaceship occupants when arriving at various stellar systems having travelled close to the speed of light during the course of the trip. [Edit] My educational background is business and finance so I find science very fascinating. But I have to admit after listening to some of these scientists it gets to a point that it starts to sound like I'm listening to my stoner friend ponder about the meaning of things and I stop and say "what the hell did you just say"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3079 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
Well, light years of distance are years of light travel, by definition...
I understand your point about simultaneity being illusory - different celestial observers will disagree about the ordering of these events - but I don't see why this should stop us talking about what was happening on Earth (one specific location) when the gravitational waves from these two distant black holes coalescing embarked on its journey. *Keanu Reeves' voice implied*From the point of view of somebody living in the vicinity of the black hole merger, pointing their telescopes towards the Earth, the event would seem to have occurred during the neoarchean era (2.6 Gya), not the mesoproterozoic era (1.3 Gya). In reality, events are local phenomena by definition. The merger was one event, the LIGO detection was another, and the spacetime distance between them was a number of lightyears. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3080 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
That was just a snippet from an hour long talk. They covered several scientific topics. It's really fascinating and as you said NGT ad-libbing is much better than when he is trying to follow a script.
Full Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkyZvrHgOw
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3081 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
Except that the prospects of getting close enough to the speed of light for time dilation to matter are not good. The amount of energy required is the killer. And the engineering. That's a killer too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3082 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 6,317
|
Quote:
I think that 1.3 billion years is according to measurements in our reference frame (the earth). If you were surfing that gravitational ripple at the speed of light then it would be much much less than 1.3 billion years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE8kGMfXaFU |
|
|
|
|
|
#3083 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
From the point of view of somebody living in the vicinity of the black hole merger, pointing their telescopes towards the Earth, the event would seem to have occurred during the neoarchean era (2.6 Gya), not the mesoproterozoic era (1.3 Gya). In reality, events are local phenomena by definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3084 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,055
|
Quote:
Your reasoning eludes me. Where did the 2.6 Gya figure come from?
Quote:
Brian may wrote as song about that on Queens A night at the opera album.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE8kGMfXaFU |
|
|
|
|
|
#3086 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
Your reasoning eludes me. Where did the 2.6 Gya figure come from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3087 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
Like MinaH said, if the black hole merger occurred 1.3 billion years ago, 1.3 billion lightyears from Earth, then the Earth would have appeared (to those in the vicinity of the merger with powerful telescopes) as it was 2.6 Gya - long before any stromatolites appeared.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3088 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
This makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3089 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
I've heard a couple of people wondering aloud about why we have not already discovered for definite this new and huge Planet 9 if it exists when it is in our comic backyard compared to those galaxies we can spot that are over 10 billion light years distant. To be honest and as much as I take an interest and knowledge in the subject I really do not have a decent answer to that question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3090 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,020
|
Quote:
If you view the Earth from 1.3 billion lightyears away it will look how it was 1.3 Gya. People living near the (merged) black hole 'today' would see the Earth teeming with stromatolites, but their ancestors living 1.3 Gya (who were there when the black holes merged) would have seen the Earth as it was 2.6 Gya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3091 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21,645
|
Quote:
If you view the Earth from 1.3 billion lightyears away it will look how it was 1.3 Gya. People living near the (merged) black hole 'today' would see the Earth teeming with stromatolites, but their ancestors living 1.3 Gya (who were there when the black holes merged) would have seen the Earth as it was 2.6 Gya.
What remains true is that the gravitational waves recently observed on Earth embarked on their voyage across the cosmos 1.3 billion years ago. So I still don't understand why you would object to that way of putting the timescales involved into an Earthly context. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3092 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
What is "Gya"? Bya would be more understandable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3093 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
But that's just a rather extreme example of observers in different places disagreeing about the order of events - as I acknowledged earlier. An observer midway between Earth and the black holes would see stromatolites and black holes coalescing as simultaneous events. Anyone elsewhere will disagree (I am of course pretending that 'stromatolites' were a comparably brief chronological blip!).
What remains true is that the gravitational waves recently observed on Earth embarked on their voyage across the cosmos 1.3 billion years ago. So I still don't understand why you would object to that way of putting the timescales involved into an Earthly context. The tabloid press like to convert things to earthly scales for their readers, presumably to make things simpler to understand, but what they really do is propagate the lack of comprehension of the journalist. Relativity isn't that difficult to understand really, it's just that nobody tries to educate children about it other than to instil the notion that such things are barely comprehensible and you'll have to be some kind of super brain if you ever expect to understand it. Which is a load of b*llocks, of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3094 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,020
|
Quote:
It means "gigayears ago". Both are equally understandable, but the use of giga avoids any confusion as to whether billion refers to 10^9 or 10^12.
In fact you yourself used the phrase "billion lightyears away" in the same post as "Gya", so how confusing is that? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3095 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,236
|
Quote:
There's no confusion over usage of the word "billion", except for people who are being deliberately obtuse. And I don't ever remember hearing the word "gigayear" either.
In fact you yourself used the phrase "billion lightyears away" in the same post as "Gya", so how confusing is that? I suppose I could have used "Gly" (gigalightyears) too, but it isn't a common abbreviation as far as I know, whereas "Gya" is. That isn't at all confusing unless, as you say, you are being deliberately obtuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3096 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 76,816
|
I still haven't got it clear in my mind why these gravitational waves travel at the speed of light
Are they thought to be some kind of electro-magnetic wave ? I don't think that's the case as I understood the science has been trying for a century to find a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism and the other forces I suspect that these waves not actually composed of waves of gravity but ripples in the fabric of the universe.........in the same way that 'gravity' doesn't really exist but is merely a handy description of the distortions in spacetime caused by mass Does this sound as though I'm on the right track ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3097 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4,020
|
Quote:
I still haven't got it clear in my mind why these gravitational waves travel at the speed of light
Are they thought to be some kind of electro-magnetic wave ? I don't think that's the case as I understood the science has been trying for a century to find a relationship between gravity and electromagnetism and the other forces I suspect that these waves not actually composed of waves of gravity but ripples in the fabric of the universe.........in the same way that 'gravity' doesn't really exist but is merely a handy description of the distortions in spacetime caused by mass Does this sound as though I'm on the right track ? Generally I think anything will travel at the speed of light unless there is a reason for it not to, such as having mass. Since forces are associated with transmission particles, such as the photon for the electromagnetic force, there is a theoretical particle called a graviton which would transmit gravity. Since gravity waves travel at the speed of light this must presumably also be massless, like the photon. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3098 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,055
|
Hi whatjoethinks , if you are happy with your previous comment, sometimes there is no need to keep explaining, as sometimes that takes one in circles.
For what it is worth I attach the following for atg, which provides adequate description of the various terminologies associated with prefixes used with the SI system of metrics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_prefix |
|
|
|
|
|
#3099 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,055
|
Quote:
I still haven't got it clear in my mind why these gravitational waves travel at the speed of light
... I suspect that these waves not actually composed of waves of gravity but ripples in the fabric of the universe.........in the same way that 'gravity' doesn't really exist but is merely a handy description of the distortions in spacetime caused by mass Does this sound as though I'm on the right track ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Devon
Posts: 12,838
|
46 billion! That's a lot of Nelson's Columns.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:39.




I'm not a big fan of his documentaries but here, ad libbing, he was on great form. +1
*Keanu Reeves' voice implied*