Deep Space Shots... Remarkable

[Code Doc]

Here they are. Take a look.
http://www.flixxy.com/hubble-ultra-deep-field-3d.htm

OK. I really need a Forum discussion. Narrator says "... faster than the speed of light..."

[KiwiDexter]

" ... able to leap tall buildings ..."

[Code Doc]

" ... able to leap tall buildings ..."

I thought Warp 1+ was a "Star Trek" myth.

Didn't Einstein say that E = MC^2 ?

[NickThissen]

What he says is actually true though, well at least part of it. The galaxies aren't moving very fast at all, it's the space in between that's expanding, and making them appear to move faster than the speed of light. The expansion of the universe is not simply galaxies moving away from each other at some speed. It's actual space expanding, which is a very different, and very hard to understand concept.

[mendhak]

I usually hold my breath when I keep the shutter open for a few seconds. Scientists must have died trying to keep the Hubble's shutter open for 11 days.

[chris128]

What I dont understand is this: if this thing is so sensitive to light, how come it doesnt just pick up all the light coming from all of the other stars (and the sun) that are much closer to it? I know they "pointed" it at a specific area but at the end of the day there is no tunnel between that telescope and the galaxies they are supposedly seeing 13 bn light years away or whatever..

[Bonker Gudd]

This will cause another Postmen strike.

[Code Doc]

What he says is actually true though, well at least part of it. The galaxies aren't moving very fast at all, it's the space in between that's expanding, and making them appear to move faster than the speed of light. The expansion of the universe is not simply galaxies moving away from each other at some speed. It's actual space expanding, which is a very different, and very hard to understand concept.

Consider this:
Suppose that object A is moving at the speed of light. Object B is moving at the speed of light in the opposite direction, exactly colinear.

A<---------.---------> B

That means that a person on object A is moving away from a person on object B at twice the speed of light (and vice versa). However, it would be impossible for any two objects to be moving away from each other at more than twice the speed of light because the speed of light sets the limit on how fast an object can travel relative to a fixed point.

Make sense?

[zaza]

I thought we'd covered this. Welcome to Special Relativity.

[NickThissen]

Consider this:
Suppose that object A is moving at the speed of light. Object B is moving at the speed of light in the opposite direction, exactly colinear.

A<---------.---------> B

That means that a person on object A is moving away from a person on object B at twice the speed of light (and vice versa). However, it would be impossible for any two objects to be moving away from each other at more than twice the speed of light because the speed of light sets the limit on how fast an object can travel relative to a fixed point.

Make sense?

If we ignore the expansion of space for a moment, then the statement in bold is false. They cannot move away from each other at twice the speed of light. Velocities cannot simply be added to find the new velocity.
Suppose you are in a car moving at 50 mph. Then you shoot a bullet at 200 mph relative to the car. How fast is the bullet traveling relative to the ground? You might say 250 mph, but that's false. It's actually something like 249.99999 mph. This is due to special relativity, but as you can see, it makes only a tiny difference in 'every day' speeds. If you get to the speed of light though, it makes a huge difference.
Now let's suppose your car is moving at 0.9c and the bullet you fire at 0.95c. According to your reasoning (simply adding the velocities) we would have about 1.85c, which is not possible.
Applying special relativity however, we get something like 0.999895c (I just made this up, but it will be similar to that).

The underlined statement is also not quite correct. The speed of light is constant in every inertial reference frame. An inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating. Even if you are moving at a speed of 0.9c and then fire a laser beam, the speed of the light in the laser will still be moving at c relative to you. You do not see any difference, even though you are moving so close to c yourself.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with galaxies apparently moving at speeds > c. That is due to the expansion of space in between us; the space carries the galaxies away. The further away they are, the faster they are moving.

[chris128]

you guys are way too clever..

[wossname]

I ate a cream doughnut the other day, it was yummy.

[I_Love_My_Vans]

I usually hold my breath when I keep the shutter open for a few seconds. Scientists must have died trying to keep the Hubble's shutter open for 11 days.

They breath through gills in their lower legs...

[EntityX]

I usually hold my breath when I keep the shutter open for a few seconds. Scientists must have died trying to keep the Hubble's shutter open for 11 days.

The way they solved this problem was really quite simple. They determined it wasn't necessary to hold their breath during the exposure and they went right on breathing. You see the Hubble is up in orbit and they because they are so intelligent were able to figure out that their breathing wouldn't disturb the Hubble which is in space.

[chris128]

Also I've gotta admit I only looked at this thread because I misread the title, I thought it was "Dead Space Shots" as in screenshots of the new Dead Space game...

[Code Doc]

Also I've gotta admit I only looked at this thread because I misread the title, I thought it was "Dead Space Shots" as in screenshots of the new Dead Space game...

I forgive you. Consider this. I tried posting this on another forum and used the title, "Deep Space Probe", and somebody thought I was starting a sex thread.

[chris128]

haha that does sound pretty sexual... and scary.