Can things receding from each other faster than 1c exchange information?
Things can't move away from each other faster than 1c.
>>16775752what if one thing is moving 0.6c in one direction, and the other thing is moving 0.6c away from it in the opposite direction?
>>16775754It's still 0.999...c
>>16775754Nta but assuming the information you're sending is light then it's still moving at 1c towards the craft moving away from the signal sender, so it will catch up eventually. Light moves at 1c regardless of the speed that its source is moving at.The signal will just be redshifted.
>>16775752Space is expanding. Achilles never catches the Tortoise.
>>16775754If you're moving at 0.6c you experience time dilation and length contraction which makes everything move slower (in your reference frame)
>>1677574597% of the observable universe is receding FTL, so yes
>Can things receding from each other faster than 1c exchange information?Not new information no. If light left one galaxy now it would never catch up to the other distant galaxy. But observers in each galaxy could still see the other galaxy through a telescope, but this light would have been emitted billions of years earlier. In the past the universe was less expanded and so the recession velocity was lower in the past, also the galaxy was closer to us. During the time when the recession velocity was less than c the galaxy emitted light that we continue to see today.
>>16775993>In the past the universe was less expandedwhich is why after about 10 bn ly away galaxies start to look biggerhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSJtzn2H3Do
>>16775993So we can never observe things receding from us faster than 1c, we can only infer that they do, assuming things continued on the trajectory they were at before they slipped beyond the information horizon
>>16775759is it possible for a signal to be redshifted to the point that it doesn't exist, or does it just get infinitely weaker as the source approaches 1c receding from you?
>>16776292That's kind of what cosmic background radiation desu
>>16775745It would be extremely painful.
>>16775752Space-time literally expands faster than c you idiot.
>>16775745>tfw you will never life 90 lightyears away from earth to watch and listen Hitler speechesFeels bad man :(
>>16776500Inferred, not observed
>>16776438for you
>>16775754high school physics should a prerequisite for use of this board.
>>16776752sadge :(
>>16775754[math]\dfrac{v_1+v_2}{1+ \frac{v_1 \cdot v_2}{c^2}}[/math]0.882352941c
>>16775993It sounds like the Universe is all done and we just don't know it yet.But thanks to Hubble, we will never find out.Phenomenonologically speaking, the infinite, steady-state Universe is therefore confirmed.
>>16776824As should graduate degrees in logic, but what are you gonna do about it, Timmy?
>>16775745only control obsessed psychos want this to be true
>>16775745sure just send the information faster than c>>16775752proof?
>>16777039>Phenomenonologically speaking, the infinite, steady-state Universe is therefore confirmed.Nope. Still in conflict with observations. There were many more active galaxies and star formation in the past, which show galaxies evolve, inconsistent with steady-state.
>>16777286All snowglobes lead to steady states, Anon. No matter how hard you shake them.
>>16775745Our current models say no they can't
>>16777127using alpha radiums?
the issue anon is that the responsive limit for our observation caps at below c and so children can not accurately discern between the speeds higher than c
>>16777300Not in an expanding universe. Under standard cosmology the universe will continue to expand forever, the density of matter will always decrease. Star formation will eventually stop and stars will die off. The universe will tend to the heat death. Steady state is the specific hypothesis that expansion is offset by matter creation. It is not just any cosmology which tends to some steady state. The density of matter is constant and galaxies should be the same at all time, which is violated by observational data.
>>16777948>Not in an expanding universe.Your point is moot. We are in a steadystate snowglobe and you're just waiting for photons that might never arrive.And yet you keep thinking that if I shake harder, bigger loops, faster speeds, . . .Next time, you'll try even harder.Universal Halting Problem.
>>16777948>Steady state is the specific hypothesis that expansion is offset by matter creation.Shakey, shakey.
>>16777956>>Not in an expanding universe.>Your point is moot. We are in a steadystate snowglobeNope. Steady state cosmology is also expanding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
>>16777960>snowglobe is biggeningLight is slowing, growing old, cooling off, that's all. Needs more shakey.
>>16777948Steady state and eternally expanding are 100% compatible
>>16778109I didn't say it wasn't. The problem is that galaxies are observed to evolve with redshift, which is incompatible with steady state.
