As I know the universe is expanding.
And as I know the black holes are objects whoose existance is not explained.

So,

If we are in galaxy A and we are looking at galaxy B if B is accelerating in each moment it will have speed (let's call it) V.

If in one moment some objects from B are with speed V>(the speed of light) then we won't these objects.So here is our black hole.
We will see objects with speed < the speed of light.

If you take a look at a picture of a black hole and start thinking you may say am I right.

Bye for now.

Moved to Astronomy section.

(And a welcome to BAUT, aladim!)

Hi aladim and welcome to BAUT. I'm sorry, but I dont understand your question or the poll. Could you please elaborate?

So far as I can tell, aladim is proposing that the things we think are black holes are actually parts of galaxies that are traveling away from us at greater than the speed of light, even though most of the galaxy is traveling at less than the speed of light. There are lots of problems with this:

- Nothing travels greater than the speed of light
- A part of a galaxy that is traveling faster than the speed of light while the rest of the galaxy is traveling much more slowly would quickly (in astronomical terms) cease to be part of that galaxy

Most importantly, though, we don't see black holes as blank areas but as small areas of extreme gravitational concentration. There is definitely something very massive where we think black holes are - the only question is whether it's a black hole or something else.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hello again,

ToSeek -> "Nothing travels greater than the speed of light"

Yes.I guess that it is correct.

But when we are talking about an expanding universe we can't think for speed but for expansion.
When we work with speed we must have something like "refference point".
If we are calculating distance - for example from the Earth , our reference point is here.
But after the existance of the expansion we can't have a refference point.
The expansion is everywhere and I think that it is absolutely possible the universe to be with extreme expansion in some areas.
The main thing I think is the question:

Is the expansion constant with constant acceleration ?

Nereid ,

1. The poll is something like joke.
2. I guess that toSeek understood what I mean please read his post.

Excuse me,but when i was reading my first post I saw a mistake:


then we won't these objects

The correct is then we won't see these objects

Sorry again

Einstein is misreprsented when people say nothing can travel faster than light. Relativety negates that statement. Einstein acually was setting a limit on acceleration. Nothing can accelerate faster than light (186,000miles per second squared). For a human it is unlikly for us to accelerate more 32ft per second squared yet we may do so aslong as we like. Our only limitation is our willingness to accept the repercustions of time dialation.

At the event horizion light will be bent into an orbit around the black hole. Time comes to a stop in relation to earth time. Inside the event horizon light lacks the excape velocity. In relation to Earth time it will take to the end of time for mass to cross over the event horizon. time should revese and light will colaps back on itself possiby forming matter. Matter that has been accelerated to the speed of light and beyond can orbit within the event horizon. Inside the event horrizon time will move backwards in relation to our time. If a ship were to cross over the event horizon and come back out in just a few nano seconds the rest of the universe would have died of old age.

I'm sorry - I'm not very educated, but this just rings as incorrect to me.

First, 186,000 squared (c, the speed of light, squared) isn't a speed, it's a value... (in E=mc2)

Second, nothing can accelerate past the speed of light, by my understanding... not nothing can accelerate at a speed greater than light.

Unless you have some form of evidence that contradicts this?

I believe "nothing can travel faster than light" is exactly what Einstein and relativity says. And where did you get the idea that light accelerates at 186,000 miles per second squared? Light is either moving at the speed of light (which may be less than c, depending on the medium), or it isn't; if you insist on talking about its acceleration, it would be infinite.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

CodeSlinger, wouldn't the acceleration of light be 0, rather than infinite?

I was approaching it from the angle that acceleration = change in speed / time, so with time = 0, it would be infinite. Or would that be undefined? But I can also see the case for acceleration being 0, since if a photon is always traveling at speed of light, there is no change in speed. I guess it's whatever you think 0/0 should be. As long as you don't think it's 186,000 miles/second squared

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

I was under the impression that all galaxies had a black hole at their centre.

__________________
Thank God for magnetism.

Most do! Especially the big ones.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Unlike matter that moves in a single direction (Lenth) light has more than one direction(lenth and width). So how do you propose covering an ever increasing area at the same rate without aceleration? I'm always willing to learn. I was under the asumption that the sum of all vectors might be relavant.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say light has more than one direction, or that it covers an ever-increasing area. A photon travels in a single direction, and it always travels at the same speed, c*. Since its speed never changes, it simply doesn't make any sense to speak of light "accelerating".

* As I noted before, the speed of light seems different in different mediums. But as I understand it, this change in apparent speed is due to the number of times the photon gets absorbed and then re-emitted. When a photon is absorbed, there is a non-zero delay before it gets re-emitted. So, the denser the material, the more times the photon will get absorbed/re-emitted, which means it will take more time to get through the material, resulting in a slower apparent speed. But really, the photon is always traveling at c when it is traveling between particles.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

I think that livephenox is being confused by the "wave/particle" duality of light. Light can be treated as a wave, but once it is detected, the wavefront collapses to a point known as a photon.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Oh, gotcha. Time for a question of my own: does the wave front propagate at c? I presume it does, otherwise the math probably won't work out, but I'd like to be sure.

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

What else? Where ever the wave front collapses, the photon is there.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Thanks

__________________
"It's over you head now. Time to get some professional help." - My fortune cookie from lunch

Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial

Usenet Physics FAQ

1.Theory of the accelerating expansion of the universe has galaxies at the edge moving faster then light.
2. Quantum telaportation is the evedence of faster than light travel.
3.Second time dialation is now a recorded fact not a theory. Time is an important factor in speed. Time is relative to were you are observing it from. It is true you can not exceed the speed of light in the observers time frame. The clasical phisics that govern the Universe will not allow it. Lucky for us the quantum phisics that govern the multiverse do allow faster than light movement. Observing a ship from earth the observer would watch time slow down the for travelers to the point that they could nolonger accelerate yet their apparent mass will continue to increase until they colapse int thier own black hole. They are lost forever because the can not stop in that universe. If observing from the ship, time seems normal for you as you continually accelerate at a comfortable 1G. Looking back at Earth you would see time slow to a stop for them and dissaper as the light can nolonger keep up. At this piont the ship is moving faster than Earths light and still accelerating. You exist outside of space time. Travel one light year. Then decelerate to Earths light speed to cross back over your event horrizon at your destination. Looking back at earth no time passed. It looks like instant travel. Look up Twins paradox. The ship now exist in two time frames. One where you never stoped the other you tavaled faster than light and no time passed on earth and you have reached your desination.