How could the universe expand faster than the speed of light? That seems impossible!

- asks Paul

By | Posted July 9, 2007
Posted in: Ever Wondered?, Physical Science
Tags: , ,

In science fiction universes, traveling the galaxy is a snap – just engage the “warp” or “hyperspeed” drive, and off you go, cruising the cosmos at several times the speed of light. But back in reality, we’ve all been taught that the speed of light is a strict traffic law that can’t be broken. This is true, but slightly misleading.

Einstein’s theory of special relativity, first published in 1905, asserted that the speed of light is a constant (300 million meters per second), no matter who measures it. It’s always the same whether you are in motion or at rest. This line of thinking is a lot different than we’re used to experiencing. For example, if you try to measure the speed of an oncoming car from a moving vehicle, you end up getting the combined speed of both cars. This is why cops have to stay parked. Light is different, because no matter what you’re doing it always goes the same speed.

The speed of light affects us more than we realize – it helps us understand the difference between cause and effect. If things could move faster than the light we see them by, we’d be in for weird experiences. If you were a catcher trying to catch a superluminal fastball, you might feel the ball hit your glove even before the pitcher starts his wind-up: The effect before the cause. That’s because the image of object would be traveling at the speed of light, trailing the faster baseball like the slower sound of thunder trails after the image of lightning.

Now that we have a taste for Einstein’s theory, we know that baseballs don’t go faster than the speed of light. But is there anything that can? It turns out that the speed of light is only a limit on objects – like baseballs – as they move through space. The movement of space itself, however, can make the speed of light seem slow.

Right after the Big Bang, the universe had a monstrous growth-spurt called inflation. The whole thing was over in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, but the universe grew exponentially in that brief blip, repeatedly doubling in size. At the end of inflation, although the universe was still smaller than a car, the outer edge had traveled many times faster than the speed of light. Since then, the universe has continued its expansion, but at a more reasonable, steady pace.

This ultra-fast growth seems to contradict what we’ve just discussed, but it makes sense if you understand the distinction between expansion and motion. When astronomers say that the universe is expanding, they’re talking about the rather abstract concept of space-time. Basically, space-time is the three physical dimensions of our existence-length, breadth and depth-combined with the additional dimension of time; think of it as a wire grid that connects every part of the universe to every other part. When we say an object has motion, we’re referring to its change in position relative to the space-time grid. The speed of light is only a constraint for objects that exist within space-time, not for space-time itself.

To better visualize the theory, astronomers often illustrate the expanding universe as a loaf of raisin bread rising in the oven. The raisins are galaxies and the rising dough represents space-time. As the dough expands, the raisin galaxies find themselves farther apart from each other, even though they are not moving relative to the dough between them.

Now let’s imagine that there’s a beetle in the loaf and it starts crawling toward a faraway raisin (don’t worry- we’re not going to eat it anyway). The beetle represents anything within space, such as baseballs, spaceships or photons. When the beetle burrows through the bread, he is moving relative to the dough, and all the other raisins. The speed of light limits how fast the beetle can travel, but not how quickly the bread can rise. Just because the expansion of space can break the speed limit, it doesn’t mean that we can go faster than Einstein said we could.

So, while the speed of light remains an unbreakable barrier for those of us within the universe, it can’t limit the expansion of space-time itself. The universe keeps right on expanding, but the speed of light limits how much of it we can see, and how fast we can move. It may not be fair, but that’s physics.

Related Posts


All comments are moderated, your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.

  1. Einstein, although widely misquoted as doing so, did not assert or hypothesize that the speed of light is a constant. He asserted that it is everywhere the same without respect to the field of reference. This allows for a speed of light that remains uniform throughout the entire universe but not necessarily a constant over time.

    There are those of us who are aware that at the beginning the speed of light and the speed of gravity were once equal. Since then the speed of light has decayed greatly and the speed of gravity has not. I refer you to the work of Barry Setterfield; he has a website.

    Thomas Smith, July 9, 2007 at 11:55 pm
  2. Thomas, great point to bring up- indeed, when I referred to the “constant speed of light,” I meant as measured anywhere in our current universe. Thanks for helping to make the distinction.

    Joshua J Romero, July 10, 2007 at 3:07 pm
  3. Hello,

    I have a couple of questions on this topic. Here are the facts:

    2 flashlights are moving away from each other starting from a fixed point along a straight line.

    The flashlights are pointed at each other.

    Each flashlight is traveling at 1/2 the speed of light as measured from the fixed point.

    The flashlights are traveling away from each other at the speed of light.

    The question: If you turn the flashlights on after one minute, will the light ever reach the other flashlight?

    If the light will never reach the other flashlight, and the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, what happens when the speed of the expanding universe reaches 1/2 the speed of light?

    Dan Linn, August 30, 2007 at 11:21 am
  4. That is the point in the first comment. The speed of light is not relative to the motion of the flashlight. The light emmited when you turn on the flashlight will travel at the speed of light towards the other flashlight and reach it at the third minute.

    Kevin Mullen, September 5, 2007 at 8:37 am
  5. Since both flashlights are travelling at 1/2 light speed, after 1 minute both flashlights will be exactly one light minute apart. now the flashlights are turned on. the light from flashlight A will take 1 minute to reach the point when flashlight B was first turned on. Let’s call this point C. Meanwhile, flashlight B was still moving for 1 minute and will be 1/2 light minute further away from that point C. the light from flashlight A will take one more light minute to connect with flashlight B who after one minute will be exactly one light minute away from the point C.

    This is only two minutes from the time that the flashlights were turned on. But it is 3 minutes from the start of the experiment.

    Please correct the math if I am wrong, but I think it’s right.

    Ron R, September 25, 2007 at 6:42 am
  6. so is there something like a photon or anything that can beat the speed of light because if there is i would be delighted to know!

    pat felvey, October 15, 2007 at 10:29 pm
  7. The fact that we will always measure the speed of light as being the same, irrespective of our own speed, seems to have been demonstrated experimenatlly. Also, apparently proven is that clocks keep different time according to how they are moving. However – does anyone actually understand how these apparently logical impossibilties can be? Or why particles should change their behaviour if we look at them or that space is curved or how the whole universe can ever have been concentrated at a point? I once asked a physicist and he answered that no-one understands how these things can be – they just are so. It seems that we must ascribe them to magic?

    Robert, November 28, 2007 at 3:34 pm
  8. Robert, it is a logical impossibility only because our conception of logic is flawed.

    Greg, January 31, 2008 at 12:56 am
  9. Greg:

    If our concept of logic is flawed, then “someone” needs to show where the flaw is. If I´m going at 30mph and another car overtakes at 60, I´ll measure its relative speed at 30mph.. The same applies to a washing machine overtaking me in outerspace or a sound wave on the earth. But not to a photon – I will always measure its relative speed the same, no matter what my speed is. Why???
    The Universe is thought by many physicists to have come from nothing – no space, no matter, no energy and no time – you can´t get any more nothigful than that. A quantum fluctuation in the nothing, they say. And what caused this quantum fluctuation? Nothing did – it was random. It´s all pretty unbelievable stuff, which scientists do not understand either. A physicist whom I exchanged emails with said there is a saying in his profession in the context of these impossible questions – keep your head down and calculate.

    robert, February 4, 2008 at 2:20 pm
  10. I don’t think that it is logic that is flawed (here)…

    Let’s say two identical spaceships take off from an asteroid at the same time in opposite directions. Both have identical clocks. After accelerating to .9c, Ship A sends a signal. Everyone agrees that this travels the speed of light, and it takes some amount of time. Ship A waits an hour, and sends another signal, but now the two ships are further apart, so it takes longer for this signal to get there. Ship B therefore measures rather more than an hour between the signals and has no choice but to conclude that time is passing slower for ship A.

    We know that isn’t true, it just took longer for the signal to get there. As it happens, however, if Ship B sends a signal of its own, it knows that it will travel towards Ship B at c relative to Ship B, which means that it is going at some lesser speed relative to Ship A according to Ship B’s reckoning of time. But Ship A’s time appears to be slower than Ship B’s (according to Ship B), so you have to take that into account, at which point you will realize that the light is still moving at c.

    Both ships will be saying that time is passing more slowly on the other, so which is right? Well both… to be able to tell for sure, they’d have to “meet up” again, and to do that, one or both of them would have to accelerate, which changes their frame of reference.

    I’m no physicist, but that is my understanding of it.

    Kevin Sharkey, February 26, 2008 at 9:03 pm
  11. I don´t think your example is the same as the peculiarity I´m referring to. If I am travelling at 0.25%c and I´m overtaken by someone travelling at 0.50%c and simultaneously a photon overtakes both of us and we each measure its relative speed, we will both measure its relative speed at c – not 0.75c and 0.50c respectively. (Phew!!) I asked a physicist whether, even though we know it is so, he understood how it possibly could be. (Together with moving clocks keeping different times and a whole lot of other “counterintuitive” things). He replied that the various things I cited are so and we have to accept them – but no-one understands them.

    robert, March 3, 2008 at 2:36 pm
  12. Whilst the evidence is convincing that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate (Supernova Type 1a vs redshift plot), I have seen no evidence that the space-time grid is expanding faster than the speed of light, whether in the past nor in the present. Can anyone help here?

    Chris, March 12, 2008 at 11:55 am
  13. Does anybody really know what time it is? -Chicago

    Gustav, August 26, 2008 at 12:48 pm
  14. was there light was there time ?was there gravity before big bang?if so there is a problem,because of the gravity time connection.therefore it does not matter if it blew up or not.gravity was still there,with the time.can not have nothing,then something.impossible,bad theory.the gravity of the nothing object in space,has already reached out and influenced time and space,whether it blew up or not makes no difference.also it has been said,for a minute time it was going faster than the speed of light,then slowed down,then sped back up etc.well first of all,if it was going faster than the speed of light it would keep doing reason for it to slow down,because there is nothing there right.well for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.a body in motion stays in motion,unless it is acted upon by an outside the universe or universes.nothing can be added to or taken away from.etc.we may be going faster than the speed of light ourselves,do to all the different speeds we are moving through space,plus the main unknown one being the big bang itself.highly unlikely thathe singularity was just sitting there.probably had a lot of angular momentums in it from earlier journeys etc.also it has been said that the universe is expanding with the distant galaxies reaproaching the speed of light.a problem again,you would not be able to see any of the far away galaxies the way we can.because given their age 13 billion plus years plus. not enough time in age of said universe for them to get can see these galaxies both directions from earth.this is a problem because this is way older than theory suggest.add it up.then there is the how long did it take to get there to see where it is now thing ,plus how long to make a galaxy thing.etc.we are not the center of the universe,but if you just used the speed of light from us to see them where they are now,does not add up.also due to the theory of infinite mass with speed increase to light theory,you would not be able to see those far away galaxies they would be squished down to various small sizes due to their close to light speeds.therefore everywhere out there. there should be squished galaxies do to their speed etc. like to know where they are in theory and such.also the missing mass thing, thats easy .the mass is outside our vision,past our telescopes past our instuments,that would explain a few of the holes in the theories .it is not the ether out there causing this it is mass gravity etc.light is influenced by gravity and probably distance,therefore things may not be as thy seem.anytime tou turn on a flashlight or anything in the electomagnectic spectrum,it is going faster than the speed of light due to all the angular momentums the earth is envolved in.

    hutch, December 7, 2008 at 10:07 pm
  15. Interesting question and interesting commnets.

    Here’s my take:

    I start with the premise that time and distance are inseparable.

    As a further shrinking of nature’s elements, I propose that distance and time are two sides of the same coin. I explain this notion with a mind experiment. Imagine that two scientists are conducting a test of the speed of light and they synchronize their very accurate watches. As part of the test, one moves to a location that is 186.3 miles away from the other, which is 1/1000th the distance light is thought to travel in a second. When the traveling scientist reached his/her location, the two would in effect be one light-millisecond of space-distance from each other. I contend that it doesn’t matter if the scientist got to the new location via a high-speed rocket, was teleported at the speed of light, or walked. Despite what his/her watch read (which, of course, would be affected by travel speed), once there, (as I will explain forthwith) he/she would be one light millisecond (of space-distance) behind the other and vice versa. Now, imagine that the two scientists are conducting the Aspect experiment and they each can witness one member of a pair of complementary particles. When one changes the spin direction of one member, the other member will appear to change instantly because the other physicist is already one light-millisecond away from the other. In other words, the physicist has already consumed the travel time as time and distance [in the physical world] are equal.
    Consider the same experiment using red and green lights. Imagine that each time the spin of one member changed a light would immediately turn to green if it were red and red if it were green. The opposite member of the pair would turn the same way so that every time one turned green the other would turn red. Imagine that the lights are on a high tower and there is a telescope at each end monitoring the light changes. If the spin were changed for one member, as soon as anyone witnessed it, the light would instantly change. The opposite would also be true to the observer; yet there would in fact be a lag.
    Imagine that the watches of these observers are synchronized with a huge clock equidistant above them, and they each change the spin direction at exactly five minute intervals starting at noon. At exactly five past noon, one physicist would witness a change in direction, at exactly ten past, the other physicist would witness a change in direction, and neither would detect the one light millisecond delay because noon to each observer would occur one light millisecond earlier. It would seem that light is given a head start equal to its anticipated travel time so that it always seems to get to its end point instantly. We can never measure this difference because, as Einstein understood, our information about an event is limited by the speed of ‘c’. The time/distance limitation is due to the fact that we are not seeing the light directly; we can only witness the source of the light, which is separated by distance, which is directly tied to time.
    The opposite effect occurs if we were to measure the speed of light by bouncing a beam and then measuring the delay. A fairly long-range version of this test is done by bouncing a beam off of a mirror on the Moon. In truth, as scientists are certain of the speed of light, this test is conducted to measure the distance between the Earth and Moon rather than measuring the speed of light. Nevertheless it supports my contention about the inseparability of distance and time. Here is a brief description of that test.
    In a visit to the Moon about thirty years ago astronauts placed a mirror such that one of its several facets always points toward Earth. Scientists on Earth periodically fire a laser beam at this mirror and then measure the travel time of the pulse, which takes about two and a half seconds for the round trip. They consistently get results that indicate light travel at just slightly less than 300,000 kilometers per second. This seems to confirm the fixed speed of light hypothesis; however, let us consider this experiment carefully.
    There are three spatial coordinates which measure locations in space: length, width and depth. Along, with other reasons, because things change and move about, Einstein added time as a fourth dimension. The three location coordinates combined with the time qualifier define the space within our ever-changing four-dimensional universe in a practical sense. With this construct in mind, you can consider the three location coordinates in which we and everything else in the universe move about as a continuum of space-moments, which I call “spoments.” Now let’s look at the important function of speed.
    Speed is a calculation of the distance between two points, divided by the time it takes to make the trip. As with all equations, we can employ all its variations; e.g., distance=speed*time, and/or time= distance/speed, in order to derive any of the values as long as we know the other two. Considering these equations, the method of measuring distances between spoments in our four-dimensional universe is directly affected by the speed of travel between them. The result is that we can conceivably have the distance between any two spoments as zero if speed equals distance. In other words, if the time-distance between spoments equals their space-distance, then they effectively occupy the same space! In my model this precisely defines the realm of the metaphysical because in that world everything is virtually connected.

    I say much more about this in a book published earlier this yaer, but this is the flavor of linking of time to distance and an important aspect of how space can expand faster than “c”.

    Joe Donlan, December 11, 2008 at 10:38 am
  16. Look guys…My plane goes faster than the speed of light. i fly to the Andromeda Galaxy everyday.

    That Guy, January 6, 2009 at 10:33 am
  17. If the space between galaxies is expanding at greater than the speed of light, how is it possible that any light reaches us from those galaxies at all?

    For example, 2 galaxies are 10 billion light years apart, and the space between is expanding at C. After 5 billion years the light from one has travelled half the original distance, however, due to the expansion the remaining distance to travel is 10 billion light years.

    How can light overcome the expansion of space if it is greater than C? Surely galaxies should only be visible while the space between them is expanding at less than C.

    Aardwolf, January 11, 2009 at 8:09 pm
  18. @Nardwolf

    Light is does not travel relative to the expanding light sources (galaxies).

    Douchemaster T, January 27, 2009 at 2:43 pm
  19. Question – somewhere I read that we cannot measure motion of a body relative to “Absolute Space”, that motion of a body can only be measured relative to other bodies. Is that because Absolute Space is expanding faster than the speed of light (which would make sense of the fact that bodies confined to speed of light therefore have no no motion relative to Absolute Space) ?

    Nick, April 2, 2009 at 11:18 am
  20. Douchemaster T,

    I agree, but light still needs to travel from point a to point b. If space has expanded (faster than light) between point a and b, how can light overcome that expanded distance?

    One other point, if space is expanding between galaxies (but oddly not inside them) how is it possible for galaxies to collide? Galaxies move very slowly compared to these expansion velocities.

    Aardwolf, April 8, 2009 at 12:56 pm
  21. I am not a physicist, but I think I can explain the constant speed of light very simply. The faster you travel, whether on a planet or in a spaceship, the slower your personal experience of time is (it is relative). When you look out in space, whether up in the sky or out of your spaceship, everything appears to be speeding up due to your personal experience of time (the faster you go, the slower your own time seems) versus the rest of the universe. Therefore the light actually catches you faster because you are experiencing slower time (the two negate each other, creating a constant speed of light).

    This is very similar to gravity. The mass of an object increases its attraction (speed), but the greater the mass, the slower its acceleration (the two negate each other and so all objects fall at the same rate). Galileo proved this by dropping two objects of different masses from a great height and showing that they landed at the same time. 350 years later we proved it again on the moon with the famous feather and lead ball experiment.

    philocinemas, May 6, 2009 at 10:52 pm
  22. A car traveling 30mph on a 2 mile long track will take 2 minutes to travel over 1/2 the track. At what speed must the car travel over the 2nd half of the track to average 60mph over the entire 2 miles?

    AJ, May 7, 2009 at 4:51 pm
  23. There is one thing which can travel at more than the speed of light. Suppose we put the Queen in a rocket propelled outwards from Earth at 0.9c (good idea if you ask me). After 2 years it crashes into a piece of space debris and she is killed. At that very instant the Prince of Wales becomes King, despite the fact that she is 1.8 light years away. So monarchy travels at infinite speed. Of course it helps that it has no mass (nor any point either, if you ask me).

    keith, July 6, 2009 at 12:00 pm
  24. Even after the universe was quite old, perhaps a few million years or so; there was no gravity until galaxies began forming. Attraction and repulsion? Yes. But gravity is an intrinsic quality of magnetism and several others, of speed.

    Orien Rigney, July 8, 2009 at 8:20 am
  25. the speed of light reflects the speed at which the university is expanding at. Nothing in the universe can go faster than the speed the university is expanding at. Time is the reciprocal of the relative speed an object moves relative to the speed the universe is expansion at.

    to post 3. – as long as each flash light is traveling slower than the speed of light then the light from each flashlight will reach the other.The point of time you switch on the flash light is irrelevant.

    Seibt, September 3, 2009 at 1:38 am
  26. “This is why cops have to stay parked.” No they don’t. They can clock you from a parked position, moving towards you, moving away from you or moving behind you, and especially if you are driving thru Wisconsin.

    Dan, September 16, 2009 at 9:10 am
  27. It is quite obvious that scientists have the definitions of time and space incorrect.
    Rather than arguing about how to fit the inaccuracies into “our” theories, let’s break down the fundamental dogma of our belief structure and simply start from scratch.

    Here’s an intro:
    1. Time is incorrectly defined by movement in a cesium atom.
    2. Time is not relative.
    3. Space is always moving.
    4. There are only constants in a suspended animation.
    5. Consider space a medium rather than an empty vacuum.
    Now, Begin.

    friedegg, December 21, 2009 at 1:48 am
  28. I should add the following because someone is bound to ask:
    6. There is no gravity.
    7. There is a singularity of absolute silence.
    8. There is no anti-matter (or anti-photon).

    friedegg, December 21, 2009 at 1:56 am
  29. In the above example, light will be received (or reach) from flash light send after 1 hour travelling to each other after 3 hours.

    I did some calculation and found out that light flashed after 2 hours will reach each other after 8 hours.

    I did the calculation graphically.

    I just want to know how do we calculate light flashed after successive hours say every one hour. Graphically it would be exhausting.

    How can it be done Mathematically?

    Suppose I want to know the time taken to reach other, if light is flased after 5 hour travel time?

    Niteen, February 23, 2010 at 6:49 am
  30. Reference to post 3, 4, 5 & 25

    In the above example, light will be received (or reach) from flash light send after 1 hour travelling to each other after 3 hours.

    I did some calculation and found out that light flashed after 2 hours will reach each other after 8 hours.

    I did the calculation graphically.

    I just want to know how do we calculate light flashed after successive hours say every one hour. Graphically it would be exhausting.

    Suppose I want to know the time taken to reach other, if light is flased after 5 hour travel time? How can it be done Mathematically?

    Niteen, February 23, 2010 at 6:56 am
  31. I just want to know this infinite expansion of space is taking place in which container or medium.I am not very sure about my language.Suppose there is a balloon with dots/specks on it and we inflate the balloon. The specks are moving away from each other as the balloon expands. What is the limit in the case of the galaxies moving away from each other? That means, is the space in which these galaxies are moving away is infinite? So at the time of the Big Bang, what was there outside the cosmic egg which exploded? Kindly somebody explain.

    sibatosh bagchi, March 16, 2010 at 11:50 am
  32. How could the universe expand faster than the speed of light?

    Time is the variable. Can one body of mass travel away from another body of mass at the speed of light? Of course. If a bird flies in one direction at ten kilometers per hour, and another flies in the opposite direction at the same speed, neither are flying at twenty Kilometers per hour but that is the speed of separation.

    Multiplied by the vastness of the universe, it is quite possible that our earth and some unknown masses are not only traveling away from each other at the speed of light, but at an even higher speed.

    David Thompson, April 8, 2010 at 5:56 am
  33. Galilean Relativity explains why two objects moving at .9c in opposite directions from a center point are in fact not moving at 1.8c away from each other. The velocities just do not add that way.

    So, how can distant objects be moving away from each at faster than c? The reason is because the space between them is expanding. The objects are not moving through space faster than c.

    Imagine two ballplayers on the opposite side of the field. One ballplayer throws a ball to the other. If you somehow expand the playing field faster than the ball is traveling it would appear as if the ballplayers are moving away faster than the ball can travel. This is not the case because the ballplayers never moved, the playing field just got bigger.

    Jason, April 25, 2010 at 9:49 am
  34. hi. There. I. Am. The. Master. Chief. Spartan. 117. From. Halo. We. Have. Exedded. Infinity. Ludicrus. Speed. Thats. Right. We. Were. At. Infint. Ludicrus. Speed. Before your. Universe. Was. Created. Halo. Anti. Buy. Buy. Technolgies. From. Halo. Or. Heaven. Too. Earth. Only. Takes. 20. Minutes

    james. Braselton, April 25, 2010 at 10:45 pm
  35. Hi all. I have a quick and to the point question: if we forget about using the term ‘speed of light’ and use actual measurements – is it possible for an object to move faster than 300 million metres per second? If not, what would restrict an object from moving faster than this?

    Zane, April 28, 2010 at 6:10 am
  36. Dear Dr….,

    Please to visit in my web site ‘ ‘ And Please can you test my ‘Time Flow’ Formula? Many Thanks.


    Salih Kırcalar

    Salih KIRCALAR, July 6, 2010 at 9:07 am
  37. Dear Dr….,

    Very small free roaming particles lifetime very short.[free photons, free notron, free proton,free
    electron ,vs].And their lifetime is its energy Mc2. Protons are observed to be stable and their theoretical minimum half-life is 1×10’36 years.Grand unified theories generally predict. That proton
    decay should take place, although experiments so far have only resulted in a lower limit 10’35 years for proton’s lifetime. I see that. The earth lifetime is its Mc’2 energy. When this is calculated
    the lifetime of earth.

    Earth Mass= 5.97×10’24 kg. the lifetime 1 kg of mass in space is 2851927903,26 years.

    Earth Lifetime is 1.7×10’34 years. I think that, this is a very interesting result.

    Best regarts
    Salih Kırcalar

    Salih KIRCALAR, July 6, 2010 at 9:08 am
  38. How can the universe expand faster then the speed of light? Good question.
    The answer lays in the style and design of a born universe. Implied in physics a closed universe is just that – it is closed of everything that may exist around it. Being closed the ‘embyro’ as it is called in Quanta Physics sustained itself and grew absorbing other unstable energy pods and over trillions of years a cosmic egg was formed. The cosmic egg exploded – or course it collpased first creating a botton furnace boiling all the premature matter consisting of the egg together. These chain reaction of events built an expanding pressure within the singularity but still as a closed universe. Enought pressure expanded and warp the zero point empty space field existing around it. It exploded. Infinite as the universe seems to us – it expanded furthermore based on the blast. This confined nature of evolving celestial matter instantly cooled due to the expansion of the bubble. When it expldoed – it created a material natured thermo atmosphere of empty space within the closed bubble. A pre-existing universe evolved inside the bubble as matter dragged ‘light’ behind its material nature. read: ” The Supertellic Universe” and “The Celestial Nature of Gravity” soon to be released in book stores.

    Rodney Kawecki, January 5, 2011 at 2:27 pm
  39. if the universe expands quicker than the speed of light how can we see the centre???

    kyle nester, January 30, 2011 at 7:55 pm
  40. whats to say this expansion is not allot more recent then you say.

    kyle nester, January 30, 2011 at 8:40 pm
  41. @Kyle Nester:

    There is no center. The Universe is expanding equally in all directions. Imagine a balloon. Now draw dots on the balloon to represent galaxies. Now blow up the balloon. All dots look like they are receding from all other dots, yet none can locate the ‘center’ that they are all expanding from, because the expansion is happening in another dimension. Extrapolate this with another dimension and you have our universe.

    @Robert. It’s not that your ‘logic’ is flawed, it’s that your intuition is flawed. You think you are making a logical argument, when in fact you are applying logic to a model you _assume_ is correct based on very basic and intuitive assumptions.

    Relativistic motion is very logical, it’s just that the conclusions seem to clash with our intuitions. That is only because our intuitions are built to understand the motion of rocks, gazelles, flowing water, and arrows. We were not built with a good gut-sense of how photons move and act. Your thought experiment assumes that, apparently obvious to you and many others, velocities are merely additive.

    Einstein showed that if velocities could added like that, as is the case with ‘Newtonian Relativity’, it would imply a privileged reference frame. It would also imply a universal clock of some sort. These in turn would invalidate all of Maxwell’s equations, which were experimentally verified, and would call into question the very notion of science, since the Earth is hurtling around the Sun at various speeds and if measurment was sensitive to this motion, much of physics would unravel.

    Einstein took an unusual conjecture that maybe Maxwell’s equations were literally true, and that c was a constant. He followed that implication and not only kept Maxwell’s theories intact, but reconciled many of the philosophical problems with Newtonian relativity, and as a bonus was able to make new scientific predictions which were then experimentally verified.

    Many more experiments since then have continued to validate this view.

    Here is another, more simplistic, way to make an argument that is equivalent to yours:

    Heavy things sink, light things float. That’s just obvious right? So it’s only logical that if I take an object that floats and make it heavier, it will eventually sink. Or if I take a sinking object, it is impossible by making it bigger to make it float. Now, that is simple logic, so where is the flaw?

    Obviously, the flaw is that weight is not the determinant of floating, regardless of how it may strike us as being obvious at first blush. Once a model that explained floating as relating to the mass of displaced water, a new form of ‘obviousness’ was introduced, so much so that most people now have this ‘new’ intuition because they are raised in an age where large metal ships are not extraordinary.

    Einstein did the equivalent of taking a society who believed that heavy things sink and proved them wrong my making a battleship.

    cliff, January 31, 2011 at 5:36 pm
  42. Light does not travel… Light is a chemical reaction process and a bi-product of Universal Respiration…

    Many of the problems associated with determining how the universe was created relates to the measurement of light, which is used to measure our distance from other star systems. Current theory regarding the motion of light, supports the speed of light at 186,000 mps. This is highly theoretical! I would like to propose to you that light doesn’t move at all like contemporary science tells us. Light as opposed to particles (photons) moving through space, is a chain reaction associated with the motion of electrons and moves at the speed of frequency, which is almost instantaneous! Light is a chemical reaction which would occur at a slightly slower speed but nevertheless, almost instantaneous. In other words, the light which is used to measure whether a star is moving away from a center, is inaccurate as we are seeing this light in almost “real time”!

    To read article in its entirety, visit, April 3, 2011 at 12:02 am
  43. what happens when the universe stops expanding?. The balls roll back. what happens to time then? Speed of light as measured over the last few centuries shows it has decayed to almost a no increase level (setterfield). Stars falling from the heavens? Will a day become a thousand years?

    rs, June 27, 2011 at 3:23 pm
  44. The fact that scientist have discovered that our universe is expanding currently faster than the speed of light (and yes that is currently) proves that matter (in fact all matter) can and is traveling faster than the speed of light. The epandtion of the universe is bast on the movment of thing in it not the edge sence it extends beyond our ability to see. If the Universe is expanding faster than light so is everything in it. The Earth travels around the sun at aproximently 65 million MPH and we do also if we did not we would be left behind by the Earth. So if we are a part of the Universe than we to are going faster than light just not relitive to the light in our area of space but as a hole we are. Let us not forget that once the speed of sound was thought to be the limit and it wasn’t was it. There is no limit.

    Adril40, July 1, 2011 at 3:03 pm
  45. Everyone seems to think that the universe is still in the expansion phase. I really wonder if it is just the opposite that is causing things to speed up, and that the missing matter is, in fact already gathering into what will be the nixt primordal atom. I also wonder if we just cannot see that because of the great distances. If the majority of matter is already gathered in a ceantral point, then that is attracting the remainder of the matter of our universe, causing these speeds that no one can account for, except by theroizing about dark matter and energy. I wonder if anyone ever thought of this approach.

    Caley A Hand, July 5, 2011 at 8:08 pm
  46. If the universe is still in expansion, the space between galaxies is increasing, does this expansion also occurs to the space between planets ? Does the space between the sun and the earth is also expanding too ? (is the expansion global and uniform ?)

    Jean-Philippe Prade, August 18, 2011 at 3:41 pm
  47. I think every single theory has got bunch of carrots hanging in front of their noses (evolution). Otherwise we can not progress.

    T.K.Bhadury, October 25, 2011 at 1:21 am
  48. I have a question because I am not an expert neither am I studying for a degree in astrophysics, but because I think and do not believe everything I am told just because I am told by an expert.

    There are views on steady state and big bang theories regarding the universe, and indeed on the theory of travel faster than the speed of light.

    In regard to the latter, it has always been stated by expert testimony thatit is not possible to travel faster than light.This has apparently only just been proven by the establishment, but when looked at closely has been obvious for decades. Even within this forum statements have been made that prove the possibility and yet none have picked up on the fact. If the speed of light is not constant and if, while the speed is its fastest, you travel a that speed, when the speed of light slows down, you must be travelling fatser than light.

    The other thought regarding the big bang / steady state if the big bang is correct why are galaxys travelling in opposite directions? two galaxies are currently having a head on crash which could not happen if they were thrown from a central point. Regardless of the origin of the universe I personally believe that there is a third explanation for the design of our current universe, ie the slingshot effect.

    The sad fact is that everything we view in space is conjecture, a persons own interpretation of the known facts. But what if those facts are based on false information? Einstein stated that E=Mc2, but has anyone checked it using current technology or do they accept it as read because he said so?

    A few years ago I asked NASA the following: Red shift is used to determine the distance of a star from earth, how do we know wether we are measuring a white star that is a long way away or a red star that is close by. They refused to answer such a basic question. This is a simplistic question but there must be a time when the redshift in both cases is equal.

    I have published my own thoughts on the subjects over the last 30 years and it will be interesting to see if the future proves me right, sadly I will not be here to find out… or will I?

    One final note time travel into the past can be accomplished but can not be interacted with, you were not there so you can not be there, Time travel into the future is possible but it would prove fatal in almost every instance but not because of the attempt.

    You are the scientists, but is anyone interested?

    G. Longmead, November 16, 2011 at 6:42 am
  49. Sorry folks just want to correct a statement (not spelling lol), I stated that there must be a time when the red shift must be equal. Before anyone corrects that what i should have stated was that there must be a time when the wave pattern used to measure red shift must be equal in frequency and amplitude.

    G. Longmead, November 16, 2011 at 6:53 am
  50. i think this guy “nailed it”

    Dino Reic, March 24, 2012 at 9:06 am
  51. Cops don’t have to be parked. Some of the modern radar can calculate cop car speed plus / minus your speed and find your relative speed.

    sunwukong, April 28, 2012 at 1:25 pm
  52. I thought light was only a constant in a vacuum?

    Harry Warraich, May 1, 2012 at 9:55 am
  53. you all need to get a life

    Jay, July 7, 2012 at 6:59 pm
  54. I don’t understand why they compare the expansion of the universe with the loaf of bread. There must be a better logical and sceintific explanation what are the forces behind the expansion of universe. There must be forces that affects space and time. These spacetime forces must be atleast explained than comparing to the raising of the dough in which the microrganism is converting some indregient in the dough that produces gasses that cause the expanding of the dough. Besides what is these spacetime force that causing it to expand and not contract. These are my 2 cents or so.

    Ron, July 11, 2012 at 8:58 am
  55. “If you were a catcher trying to catch a superluminal fastball, you might feel the ball hit your glove even before the pitcher starts his wind-up: The effect before the cause.”

    Yeah, and what then? This is already true for the sound. If the ball travels faster than the speed of the sound then I feel the catching before I can hear the hit. What is the difference with the light? I catch then I see. It is the same.

    “As the dough expands, the raisin galaxies find themselves farther apart from each other, even though they are not moving relative to the dough between them.”

    Yes, they do. This is what we call moving. Getting closer or farther. Look at the dictionary.

    Space-time is something we imagine not something that exists. It is a model of our actual knowledge. Something that doesn’t exists just can’t expand. The galaxies are the ones who are moving from each other. It is that easy.

    And they do that faster than the light. The final limit of the speed of the light is an assertation not a fact. And it is bad assertation.

    Suppose that we have two rockets launched from a planet in opposite direction. They travel 0.7c from the planet. Which is possible, isn’t it?

    Then they will move with 1.4c compared to each other. And you remove the planet and they still have 1.4c. Does that mean that we have another fresh bread?

    Mage, July 30, 2012 at 4:24 pm
  56. Who is to say that gravity can’t be infinite? Einstein couldn’t comprehend this If gravity is infinite, space, time, mass, and speed could be infinite. So can the speed of light. The question is, can the speed of consciousness overcome the speed of infinite mass, time, and space. The answer is no. Let us assume that the expansion of our universe is at exactly the speed of light right at this instance. That would mean that everything had infinite mass, gravity, space, and speed. Would not everything we understand now be equally paradoxical? It would also mean that nothing we can conquer could explain the real because of our limited consciousness. In other words, how could we explain what we cannot project or predict. Now that we have discovered the neutrino has traveled seemingly faster than the speed of light how can we predict forces act in similar ways in which we have recently imagined?

    Nick, August 28, 2012 at 11:28 pm
  57. Hello,
    if the universe is ~13.75 billion years old and a region visible from earth is a sphere with a radius of about 46 billion light years with objects in different ends (an yet Earth isn’t the center of the universe). So the logical questions now would be to ask – how is it possible for objects (lets say object A is our galaxy and object B is the galaxy somewhere near the end of our visible radius of 46 billion light years)?
    Ok, for worst scenario we could assume that those both objects since big bang, are moving in opposite directions (this is hardly possible, since we take distance of radius, not diameter, but nevertheless that won’t change my point). So we get that these two objects from starting point moved approximate 23 billion light years in only 13.75 billion light years. We get that minimum speed required for such result is that both these objects would move from starting point with speed of ~1.67 of light speed all those 13.75 billion years (notice that this math was done in worst possible scenario).
    In conclusion I can assume that either the age of universe is incorrect, either the speed of light is not the fastest possible speed in accordance between one moving and one not moving objects.

    Gvidas, November 28, 2012 at 3:12 pm
  58. The argument of expanding space is not acceptable, because the speed is measured by the time and the distance between object’s start and end points (it doesn’t matter that at beginning planned distance was 1 and at the end it became 1.7), in the end I will count my speed = distance/time and distance would be taken 1.7.

    Gvidas, November 28, 2012 at 3:32 pm
  59. The spacetime is just one modern false belief, it doesn’t exist. It was made mixing the, non relativistic, Lorentz’s aether with Galileo’s relativity. Given the absurdity of this invention, its consequences are absurd too. Consequences are the paradoxes, among another absurdities. Try to wake up, if you can, if your brain, good energy saver, allow you do it.

    José Miguel Ledesma, December 22, 2012 at 8:14 am
  60. I thought Joshua’s article was very lucid. I don’t know why all the comments, particularly like the last three.

    Bruce, January 20, 2013 at 12:15 am
  61. Please help me understand this: in the expansion (inflation) of it all since the Big Bang, with everything traveling away from everything else light dots on the surface of an expanding balloon, why do we see things out there? It all should have begun traveling at faster that light (being space-time)and how can we see things now, even after some slowing has occurred….? Thanx…

    Paul, January 20, 2013 at 12:45 am
  62. It’s premature, if ever possible, for humans to try to understand and explain the universe just because we came up with some theories about light and ideas about space-time. In fact, these are just illusions based on our sensory experiences and have nothing to do with what’s really “going on.” This is partly why we can’t see beyond the so called big bang, which is nothing but a dead end in my opinion and doesn’t explain anything. And, needless to say, notions about creation are just another layer of our ignorance.

    Gongoli Guingambo, January 20, 2013 at 2:25 am
  63. Universe is expanding. Because it had to accommodate the whirling masses that are expanding. This expansion may stay when some stars quickly die out, reducing the mass content. Light is not a limiting factor for universe as it is just a transition medium between mass & waves. What we see is 180 plain. Expansion is 360 surrounding. Seeing is experiment. Expansion is an inference / imagination. Ageing is expansion. Death is extinct. Mass expands, Universe expands – simple is it not?

    Madhavan, January 20, 2013 at 6:02 am
  64. Now, I know that much smarter men than me are working on this, but I gotta say, it seems pretty ad hoc to separate a speed limit for objects in space from a speed limit for objects in space while it’s expanding which it always is. This sort of negates the speed limit if the space a hypothetical object is traveling across can also expand while it’s traveling. Good example, the light from objects further away in light-years than the age of the universe has, effectively, traveled faster than the speed of light. Average speed, do keep in mind, is distance traveled by time spent traveling; if greater-than-light speeds relative to each other are attainable by galaxies, then greater-than-light speeds are attainable in the universe. Seems to me that insisting on an absolute speed limit proven not-absolute by splitting hairs between objects’ speed relative to each other and objects’ speed relative to each other is a pretty shaky definition for having followed conventional mathematics to scales beyond their utility. More likely one of our assumptions (cosmic speed limit, age of universe, distance of objects) is off and we don’t have the tools to verify yet.

    Benjamin, January 20, 2013 at 7:31 am
  65. Sorry, justification, not definition.

    Benjamin, January 20, 2013 at 7:32 am
  66. I am a novice but find this all fascinating. I was reading up on Neutral Density Filters for cameras and their effects. If we were veiwing the universe in a similar way could this explain why we cant see dark matter?

    Allison Hogan, January 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm
  67. I may be off topic, and could be grasping at straws, yet I am building my understanding of physics.
    According to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, e=mc2 and in that philosophy, when an object nears the speed of light, its mass becomes infinite (mathematically). So, after the big bang, objects move at most the speed of light, yet time-space speed is limitless(wondering here)? So ergo, why is the mass of Earth not limitless after achieving the speed of light, as consequence of the Big Bang?

    Chris Simon, January 20, 2013 at 12:22 pm
  68. So there are a few things I would like clarifying. (If I miss somthing obvious please correct me – I am no physicist).

    What lies outside the universe?
    If it is nothing, then how is empty space nothing?

    Where is the proposed start of the universe?
    Have they located this and if not…why not?
    If outside the universe is nothing, then how can something spring into existence from nothing?

    Suppose there is nothing outside of the universe…yet our universe, from concentrated matter has unexplainably exploded into existence and continues to expand, without drag (thus explaining this movement faster than light), into nothing. Surely this would suggest it is likely there are more than one concentrated matter explosions probable, which will expand through nothing (considering gravity should not be strong enough to pull this back[??]).

    What would happen when they hit one another?
    And if gravity pulls the outskirt of our universe back before this happens, how?

    Why can’t you travel faster then the speed of light yet the universe can?
    Is what lies “outside of the universe” a vacuum or something; pulling nothing into nothingness, faster then the speed of light can reach us – leaving no visible trace of the universe’s edge?

    This just does not make sense to me and I would greatly appreciate someone trying to make more sense of this without saying:
    “it’s just physics and therefore it’s fact”

    And just on more thing….
    That picture at the top, I’m assuming this is not the actual proposed shape of the universe, merely a image to show the general gist of things?


    james, January 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm
  69. If universe (alongwith its galaxy stuff) is expanding in above-light speed then i think we would not be able to see other galaxies (light stuck in between?) Looks like science will repent its theory in this case when come up with something new

    Zee, January 22, 2013 at 3:11 am
  70. Given that the universe is expanding at greater than light speed and the galaxies are further away than the age of the universe, one could conclude that we are not seeing the galaxies at all but merely the light that is left it their wakes that hasn’t all completely passed us by, since the galaxies have been generating light far longer than our snapshot of observation time. They may not even exist at all.

    Jabe, January 25, 2013 at 12:52 pm
  71. AS we are measuring speed of light in this Universe and we are present in this Universe, we will end up with a wrong value because as per Einstein’s theory of relativity, we can not measure correct speed of a moving object unless we are steady. But actually we are also moving with this expanding Universe. So we will calculate wrong speed of light.

    Naren, January 26, 2013 at 12:59 pm
  72. Einstein was a great mathematician but a lousy astrophysisist. His E=mc² helped us to understand a lot but the other theories have misguided us. He was unhappy with space till his death bed! The constant for light applies to our local galaxies and our position in the exploding universe. If you axcept that the pressure in the centre of any explosion is more than on the outskirts, you will agree with this. Therefore we can do away with all the warped theories of time-space and concentrate on mechanical physics. Mechanical physics, in turn, has do do with real matter. Anti-matter, dark-energy, gravity, have laws beyound that of our current thinking. We need to explore the mathematics of “stuff” where bosons (gravitons) travel beyound the speed of light and you will see the universe is easier to understand. RRG2013

    Rangutan, February 3, 2013 at 2:29 am
  73. The confusion many of you are having surrounds the rate of expansion of the universe. Even though the universe is expanding at a rate that is greater than the speed of light, that does not mean that distance between any two galaxies is expanding at that speed.

    In a extremely simplified example, lets assume for the moment that the universe was flat, with a width of 47 billion light years. The expansion rate is a collective expansion of all space between the two end points (edges), based on the total width of the universe. An expansion rate greater than c is due to the fact that all of space is expanding equally. The space between two galaxies, such as the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxies, is substantially shorter. This means the rate of expansion between these two galaxies is also substantially smaller.

    (Galaxy Separation / Universe Width) * Rate of Universe Expansion = Rate of Galaxy Separation Expansion.

    Now, these figures are complete guesses, as I don’t know the real numbers.

    (2.52 million LY / 47,000 million LY) * 3.56c = 0.00019c,

    which is approximately 57.26 kilometers per second. This no where near relativistic speeds, and is why we can easily see the Andromeda galaxy, even with the universe expanding.

    The current expansion rate of the universe is 74.3 +/- 2.1 kilometers per second per mega-parsec. Since every mega-parsec is expanding at that rate, we get the net effect of the universe expanding at a rate of 3.56c (approx., based on 47 bLY.)

    The idea that all of space between objects would be expanding at a rate greater than speed of light would have huge implications on our own observations. Everything would be black, as the sun, moon, planets, and stars would have quickly expanded away. Even our own bodies would be torn apart, the atoms separating at the same rate.

    Another thing to consider is that we are looking at the light from objects, where they were at when the light left them. Those objects have since moved, due to their own direction and rate of motion, and the rate of expansion of the space between us and them.

    Brent, February 3, 2013 at 3:17 am
  74. I believe that when the source of light is moving (expanding) faster than the speed of light, then that light is not now stationary, or even moving backwards (which would be a huge discussion all in and of itself). The light would still move at the speed of light, as it has to do because that is it’s law. It is just a “thinner” force, thus producing different spectrums of light than it would on a stationary object. So the light we see from distant stars that are moving away from us faster than lightspeed, we just see a weaker, thinner light from where that object was when the light was emitted. Also, if an object was moving toward us faster than light, the image would be blocked from us, as it surpasses the light it emits. So lets say a planet is moving toward the earth faster than light, we would not be able to see this unless there was a way to get a different angle on it, but we would only see where it was, not where it is. In a direct line of sight, the planet would be invisible to us. If said object had been moving for billions of years, and you managed to get behind the planet, I would assume it would appear that from where the planet came from it would still be coming toward you, at least in some aspect. Pretty mind boggling if you really sit and think about it. That’s just my take on one situation with the speed of light.

    Josh, February 3, 2013 at 1:19 pm
  75. Brent, i would like to comment you if I can (I’m once again sorry for my lack of knowledge in physics, since I’m IT analyst, nevertheless I would like to get your response):
    “The idea that all of space between objects would be expanding at a rate greater than speed of light would have huge implications on our own observations. Everything would be black, as the sun, moon, planets, and stars would have quickly expanded away. Even our own bodies would be torn apart, the atoms separating at the same rate.”
    1. Why it should be black?… – how come we couldn’t see it as a film with delays (at some the point of the observed object, which was in certain position and after a wile it got further moving in the speed that is faster than light – we would see its position at movement moments, but with delay)?
    2. And about the “our bodies torn apart” – we have an example, when our planet Earth is moving at the speed, which we can’t even reach inside our planet, but still – we don’t fell that speed because of gravitation.

    Gvidas, February 8, 2013 at 1:55 pm
  76. If the edge galaxies are traveling at the speed of the light or over then our universe is nothing more that big fat zero!That then may explain something out of the nothing! here we come the Noble prize :))

    Spacetectonics, February 13, 2013 at 1:26 pm
  77. OPS!

    If the edge galaxies are traveling at the speed of the light or over then our universe is nothing more that big fat zero!That then may explain something out of the nothing! here we come the Noble prize :))


    PS:I meant the length contraction and infinite mass then ?is that true??

    Spacetectonics, February 13, 2013 at 1:33 pm
  78. Various physicists have posited sizes of the inflationary space bubble that vary by astronomical orders of magnitude. It’s good to have faith. Given physicists posit the big bang to have sprung from a singularity, how could “space” have inflated faster than the speed of light, when there was no second body “out there” to define the space between the singularity and the second body? Space as defined in the simple illustration below is the distance between the two points. If one point is a singularity, space does not exist as at least two quanta sized bodies would be needed to define space.

    . space .

    no space . no space

    Ishmael, May 18, 2013 at 9:50 pm
  79. I’d like to start by saying that I’m not even close to an expert in this. These are the theories as best I understand them.
    To go faster, you need more energy. The faster you go, the more energy you need. When you reach the speed of light(infinite speed), you’d need infinite energy. Try filling your gas tank and driving at 10mph until it’s half empty; then, drive back at 50mph. You’ll run out of gas long before you return to that particular gas station. Lighter vehicles require less power to move that’s why a motorcycle will accelerate faster and go farther than a car with the same amount of horse power and fuel. Since space has no mass, it requires no energy to move; therefore, E=MC2 doesn’t apply because M=0.
    The thing about the galaxies moving away from each other faster than light seems to have been misinterpreted in several of the posts that I read. The “faster than light” part is meant to represent relative speed, not absolute. Thus, if two things are moving away from each other both moving at half the speed of light, they are moving away from each other at the speed of light even though neither object is going at that speed. In other words: let’s make the speed of light 100mph; thus, if I’m in a vehicle travelling east at 50mph and shoot a beam of light west, the rationale is that that light would move west at 50. It won’t. It’d move west at 100. This will also be true if my vehicle is travelling 10 or 20 or 70. This will increase the distance between me and the light at 150 or 110 or 120 or 170mph, depending on the speed of my vehicle.

    In my utterly unscientific opinion, there seems to be some sort of mechanism that only asserts itself at the upper limits of intensity. My intuition links this slowing of time around fast moving stuff to the same effect that happens near black holes. Don’t know why, just a gut feeling.

    Mousasaurus-Rex, May 19, 2013 at 5:20 pm
  80. It is my humble opinion after reading a lot of these pseudo-intellectual comments, that God must get a regularly good chuckle out of the ignorance of Man’s understanding of His Creation. Because, you see, you cannot come to a proper and accurate conclusion to anything when you leave out the most important factor.

    Rik Clarke, November 2, 2013 at 7:54 pm
  81. Nice site I like the information you have, but do you ever
    update it?, December 9, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    m = ———— { mass equals Mo / Kinetic mass equals Ko }
    1- (v2/c2

    D = v X t

    Rodney Kawecki, February 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    Rodney Kawecki, February 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm
  84. If the universe expanded faster than the speed of light how can the age of the universe be calculated?
    Hawkings says that in ten minutes the universe had expanded thousands of light years. Someone trying to calculate those ten minutes of expansion would get a result of thousands of years. So the 13.7 billion years calculated as the age of the universe are totally wrong. I’m not talking about religion here.

    Norman Dîaz, March 4, 2014 at 12:15 am
  85. Hello. I discovered your blog and this is an incredibly well written post.
    I’ll bookmark it and return to discover more of your
    helpful info. Thanks for the post. I’ll surely keep coming back.

    home remedies of acne, March 10, 2014 at 9:10 am
  86. Questions? 1) How hot was the leading edge of the expansion? 2) How would the heat energy disperse if there was nothing in front of the leading edge. (no area to cool) 3) Could that thermal energy be traceable even now? Thanks.

    Mark, March 18, 2014 at 5:00 am
  87. Nothing to add for now….I just read this whole thing in one go and need to lie down, or take a vacation. I’ve been on the net since it’s inception, I’ve been EVERYWHERE on it,…(a trip to Mars would be a let down in comparison), and I’ve never seen such interesting and intellectual responses all under the one topic. Just wanted to thank the contributors.

    Mind blown, March 25, 2014 at 10:01 am
  88. Rik Crarke, I will briefly explain why religion over science is wrong. Death is humanities greatest fear, driven deep into our inherent subconscious, so religion is mans way to explain death as our minds cannot cope with it, it is actually two of the four main meanings we might find in death (afterlife, reincarnation, possible immortality through science, and legacy) which is the reason it was inherently created, all religions share this. religion states some interesting “facts” to explain away proven science. religious scientists say that dinosaurs did exist (as fossils indicate) but that because the earth and indeed the universe is only six thousand years old that means that dinosaurs and humans co-existed, and that that is where the legend of dragons comes from. Religious scientists say that because biological systems are too complex to have evolved, that means God obviously must have created them. one relevant to this is that we can see light from distant galaxies just as Adam and Eve could at the beginning of the universe because (you might want to sit down) the speed of light is not a constant. another is that because their was no evolution, Neanderthals did not exist, they were simply disfigured humans. all of them. at this entire period. one explanation for radiocarbon dating is that because the flood scrambled the carbon atoms it doesn’t work, the other is that it is simply made up by scientists, the government, and sinners and Satanists. also because DNA is so complex and we can read it, it can be nothing other than God’s signature. it does nothing. it is just a signature. and if you closely read the bible it implies and rather states that all water same from the flood, so by the logic water cannot be found outside our planet. fellow men and woman of science as well as non religious people please try not to urinate laughing, these are all serious beliefs held by leading religious scientists (not just any scientist who is religious, but those with primary degrees in religious sciences)

    Estevan Ruiz, March 25, 2014 at 6:36 pm
  89. Norman Diaz, they would only get that result if they did the calculation based on the assumption that the universe had expanded at what we know as the current speed of light. Luckily scientists are not that dense.

    JoeD, March 31, 2014 at 10:29 am
  90. The first comment says it all, it is the product of gravitational constant and the space impedance that is constant.

    Matt Young, April 22, 2014 at 8:13 pm
  91. Reading about special relativity, this question comes to mind: How can the universe expand faster than the speed of light. If an object gains mass as it accelerates then shouldn’t the universe gain mass as it propels itself away from … itself at an increasing velocity. At some point the velocity will reach a point where it will take an infinite amount of energy to propel itself apart any faster, this point which would occur long before the universe could propel itself near or beyond the speed of light.

    That is my reasoning, though the above is more a question, if someone would like to correct my logic and help me understand this email me at Thanks

    Zachary Pressley, April 29, 2014 at 4:02 am
  92. I think everything we see happens in reverse.
    Everything is expanding in all directions at the same time at tha speed of light.
    Something that seems to move in a direction is in fact slowing down in relation to everything that is moving creating the impression of moving away .it slams on brakes and this takes energy and time.
    Light in other words is standing dead still (the photons).
    You cannot go slower than standing still and that therefore limits the relative speed of light.
    Does this sound far fetched.kindly comment.

    willy gauche, April 29, 2014 at 5:07 am
  93. I have begun to think of time in terms of being relative to the observer (even if that is an inanimate object). So if inflation happened in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, my philosophical conundrum is “To what observer?” All matter was a part of inflation, right?
    Which brings up a direct contradiction to this article I think? Matter was a part of inflation. Not just space-time.
    So it seems matter moved faster than light-speed.
    And it seems all time had to stand still relative to all matter in existence.
    So back to where I am hung up… the trillionth of a trillionth of of a second is measured at what observer?

    Craig, May 13, 2014 at 3:00 pm
  94. Easy. Stop being the beetle. We need to ride space like a wave. Silver Surfer style.

    Jon, June 5, 2014 at 10:35 pm
  95. this is in resonse to Thomas Smith, July 9, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    The speed of gravity is not faster than the speed of light. If that were the case then it would be possible to send faster than light messages by moving a piece of mass and detecting the gravitational perturbations at another point in space/time.

    According to Special relativity information cannot be sent faster than light.

    Nissim Levy, June 13, 2014 at 7:18 pm
  96. How can we be certain that we are not all shrinking inward from the “edges” like a boomerang, a bang cast us out and now we are shrinking inward making it seem as the edges are getting further away from us (earth).

    Could it be that if space is expanding @ > c then at the since it is faster than c it is actually travelling backwards in time receding. This shrinking effect is expressed as “gravity” pulling everything inward like a drain in a toilet bowl?

    Brian, June 17, 2014 at 11:42 pm
  97. Given the center of the universe (origin point of big bang) in spacetime as a constant with no motion in comparison to the matter moving through it, how close to the speed of light is all matter moving away from the center. And what kind of time dilation effects do we experience?

    David, June 18, 2014 at 7:30 pm
  98. The universe can’t be expanding all away from each other unless we’re creating energy, whether you think the universe is relatively flat like a disk or round like a basketball. It doesn’t even matter if the universe has an edge and you think we’re moving away from the edge, everything cannot be moving away from everything else because in any instance there must be some kind of center. Imagine this,draw a circle on a piece of paper now draw a dot to represent the center,now and draw another circle between the dot and the outer circle. label the dot with an A, the first circle with a B,and the outer circle with a C; there are only two possible explanations for an expanding universe ,both of which are impossible. 1) If anything between A & B are moving away from each other then some of them would have to be moving towards A whereupon a huge cluster would form at the center and keep growing(if everything is moving away from each other then some of them have to be moving towards the center)that would be like inverse infinity! 2) As you go out from the center,everything is moving in the same direction outwards and everything has to keep moving faster then that before it in order for everything to expand from each other which is like impossible,the further you go out from the center in all directions the faster everything goes and has to keep accelerating ,I’m not a physics expert but it seems like something just isn’t right here, it doesn’t add up or make sense! perhaps I don’t know anything, please tell me where I’m going wrong.

    Jeff, June 27, 2014 at 1:25 pm
  99. Perhaps that’s what a black hole does, it consumes mass turns it into energy and keeps accelerating everything in the universe outward faster and faster lol our solar system would be moving a thousand times the speed of light

    Jeff, June 27, 2014 at 1:39 pm
  100. Or….lol the solar systems towards the middle of the universe are standing still and just appear to be moving away

    Jeff, June 27, 2014 at 1:47 pm
  101. I’ll start by saying! I have a Hugh imagination! I’am referring back to magic man up the top some where! I have answer that may create debate.If we can think back to the past while we are moving forward our memory’s & creations are the only thing that reminds us of the past! So there for we came before the dinosaur & just a reminder of what youesn’t to be! That we are traveling though time in reverse from being sucked through that’s allows time to travel. Like sending a text message! We are living a new creation that once was! That’s why sometimes say there be here before & time passers us instead of moving with us & we are clones created from highly advanced computers & knowing they where approaching a black hole & on the prink of there existents they left a footprint of what once lived here! Has anyone wonder why dinosaur fossils are found higher & minerals that has created advanced technology beneith! We are going recreate what once lived! They have already traveled further then us there started then us & all we are doing is what we had be design for! Why are we compatible with computers. I tell ya we where designed to be. Hahaha I’am joking or was I always going to tell this joke! Don’t think to hard now! Bahahahaha it’s time to get sleep or have already & that’s why I dream!!!! ;)

    Dave wade, July 1, 2014 at 5:32 pm
  102. Sorry missed some spelling! But hay think about really why don’t we calculate our light speed but light speed has slow somewhat there we are so far behind we should still be traveling as the previous speed for at lest the closest star & 6000years away so why aren’t we gaining ground just because the edges have slowed does mean we should for a very long time! Why do our watchs move forward to record time that goes backwards my the watch need to be reverses because keeping track of time that pass should easy the recording something that hasn’t happen yet! Why does the sun rise in the east & set behind us if where moving forward! Why does it feel like when we walk time passers us by! Why do we even feel like time passers when we are sir post to be moving forward! Why do we start of young and grow old if we are moving forward! Why in recent study’s they have proven we can sense things perverse generations have felt should they sense us if we are moving forward! There seems to be to many common points to totally disregard how we feel! Feeling are things that are relate with our past! Shouldn’t it be our future moving forward! The did all the great people from the past leave so many cues about the future! When were moving forward it feels like bread crumbs have been laid out for us to follow! How can that be when were moving forward! We shouldn’t need the past to move forward there seems way to many possibilities that could suggest some kind of reverse travel! It seems like gravity holds us down when moving forward would be so! It’s like almost everything we do is backwards! But allows us to feel as if we are moving forward when time only passes us bye!

    Dave wade, July 1, 2014 at 6:35 pm
  103. It’s funny how people say the government is holding back truth on unknow events! That people can’t handle truth! But maybe where running a one horse race with blinkers on! Because we just face the truth that could be starring us in eyes! But to afraide to admit what we all already fear & know! That we are becoming more dependant on something that really doesn’t need us! What computer virus haven’t you ever heard the saying you should never bite the hand that feeds it! Tooses your fights carefully! If somebody was making me perpously sick! I wouldn’t be to happy about it! How about you. We went from Jurassic park to clone animals so never discard a theory! Never be afraid to ask a question because there’s never a stupid question & create perocative debate! May the force be with you!

    Dave wade, July 1, 2014 at 7:24 pm
  104. The universe expands in the same fashion as baking a loaf of bread with raisins in it in an oven. How it grows is dependent to the degrees the oven is heating and the substance of the loaf a bread. The growth of the loaf a bread cooking is constant relative to the degrees temperature it is cooking at. The raisins rise to the top they are the galaxies in the universe. They surround the bread crest. As the loaf a bread expands it gets larger and larger. Using a microwave instead of an oven the bread cooks from the middle outwards with the center of the bread heated the most. When the bread reaches its potential maturity the heat is turned off or the bread will burn to a crisp.
    IN Quanta Physics Theory the raisins grow to the top of the bread in the same way as the galaxies in the universe are pushed to its outer edge. Because the loaf a bread is determent and cooks only to a specific ripeness the raisins which are the raisins at the universes edge can no longer expand further than the loaf’s cooking degree of ripeness so as they continually expand being pushed from the loafs inner temperature setting they scrabble around each other at an extremely great speed and faster than the loaf a breads growth in the oven. Because the expansion velocity of the closer galaxies at the universes center is measured at light speed the galaxies being physically pushed against at its edge scrabble pushing against the universes outer edge that divides it from the detailed pure vacuum outside the bubble which as a specific length of the universe at its edge – the expansion velocity increases to a greater velocity than the more subtle space near its center. Because of the increase in the cosmologic pressure where the universe seems to be independent as a bubble realm as it pushes against its outer edge barrier as in Hubble Observation the galaxies scatter sideways around one another – a definite increase in the galaxies speed at this location though increased cannot be specifically determined. It is only that the change in the galaxies speed at this point and time is greater than light speed. It seems to me that something is procurable is causing the galaxies to expand the universe and make it grow larger and larger. Quanta Physics puts a erupting dark star partly closed at its surface due to the cold vapor in the space atmosphere that is measured to be infinite in mass. The amount of the spacious mass and its vacuum ice cold vapors in the beginning preyed on the emerged star celestial when it emerged rendering it with its ice cold and multitude of cold vapor making the dark star’s crest surface partly sealed with icy sheets and ice cold terrain. It seems most likely that over the billions of years eruptions continue to explode at the dark stars surface as it continually fights against the empty space cold vapor atmosphere where gigantic chunks of matter are pushed out from its surface and beyond the dark stars density field. As time passes these eruptions make enough galaxies that they cause the outer realm the raisins close top the universes outer edge to scramble at speeds faster than light and expand the universe as a whole itself. The gigantic dark star that lays at the center of the universe balances and stabilizes an orbital track that allows it to continually cycle and expand. The Universe Dark Star is so gigantic in size that the total of eruptions large enough that they form galaxies filling the space and expanding the universe that it seems to measure a constant expansion rate when measured.

    Rodney Kawecki, July 18, 2014 at 4:50 pm
  105. Universe is not a one-way and endless street,we are in orbit around the center of universe.Interested to hear more,send me a message over my Facebook.

    Hamid khadivian, July 25, 2014 at 5:58 pm
  106. Here’s the proverbial “fly in the ointment”. What if time simply did not exist? What if time is an artificial concept derived into being simply as a means for a linear being (man) to describe linear travel through linear space as a direct result of senses and abilities of understanding that are limited to only linear thought and understanding? We naturally and intuitively think it takes x minutes to move y distance. Remove time from that equation and suddenly, one of two things happens: x and y cease to exist (which is not possible) or travel between x and y is no longer necessary and therefore, x and y must occupy the same space at the same time; also not possible. The theory of the Einstein Rosen bridge says otherwise. If time is removed from any equation that says travel faster than light is impossible, these equations fail and therefore, travel faster than light is more than possible; it’s becomes necessary. This would explain how it’s possible for black holes and other singularities to exist and get away with breaking all the known rules. Einstein theorized that a wormhole is possible. In effect, the theory works because time(and distance)is removed from the equation. In short, it’s the “point A and point B’ on a piece of paper explanation. If the paper represents time and space, the shortest linear distance between the two is a straight line. Velocity and distance determines how long it will take to travel between the two points. Fold the paper so that point A and Point B are touching, and, in essence, A and B are actually occupying the same space. Distance and speed is no longer a factor and collaterally, the calculation of the time it takes to move from A to B is irrelevant. Just step through from A to B and let the paper return to it’s normal shape and presto, travel from A to B is instantaneous regardless of distance. When distance over time is removed from the mix, the equations in this scenario work and the Rosen Bridge theory is plausible. If the distance between A and B is a million light years and someone was watching this happen from point C, the object moving from point A to point B through the bridge would presumably disappear from point A and appear at point B. To the person watching both points from point C, would it not be true the object just moved from A to B instantaneously? To the person watching this happen from point C, the object just moved a distance faster than the speed of light. Einstein said acceleration beyond the speed of light was impossible in his theory of Special Relativity. He never said we couldn’t get around it.

    New York, August 3, 2014 at 2:43 pm
  107. Is it not long overdue that we as human beings be grateful of the earth that we have, and discontinue on wasting trillions of dollars of commercial and geological resource on searching for the answer of where did we come from – are we in not in danger of conducting the world’s most expensive search into something that we cannot change or indeed begin to influence.

    Should we not admit – that even after our millions of years of evolution, we do not have the capacity to understand the causation of gravity, even though we know and can predict the effect of such force.

    Maybe there is better time and energy to be expended on learning how to communicate with each other and with other species, and just maybe, we could enjoy this earth and the universe for the wonderment that it is without wasting the precious buried sunshine that by some miracle of physics we have been blessed with.

    Timbo, August 7, 2014 at 5:58 pm
  108. @ Willy Gauche, I too suspect it is us who are moving relative to light which is not. Think about what it would be like to be a photon (to borrow Einstein’s trick): From a photon’s perspective, nothing is moving or moving infinitely slow. @ Nissam, “According to Special relativity information cannot be sent faster than light.” Please refer to quantum entanglement/spooky action at a distance.

    Theory, August 8, 2014 at 5:40 pm
  109. Certainly there be answers to questions yet to calculate.I think N.A.S.A. is close to exact as a corner of the universe is expanding exceeding the speed of light or 5.5trillion approx.miles per year.

    Steven S.Shell, August 16, 2014 at 12:17 am
  110. @Timbo
    you said
    Is it not long overdue that we as human beings be grateful of the earth that we have, and discontinue on wasting trillions of dollars of commercial and geological resource on searching for the answer of where did we come from – are we in not in danger of conducting the world’s most expensive search into something that we cannot change or indeed begin to influence.

    Should we not admit – that even after our millions of years of evolution, we do not have the capacity to understand the causation of gravity, even though we know and can predict the effect of such force.

    Maybe there is better time and energy to be expended on learning how to communicate with each other and with other species, and just maybe, we could enjoy this earth and the universe for the wonderment that it is without wasting the precious buried sunshine that by some miracle of physics we have been blessed with.

    i disagree with you,
    Reaching out to the stars and space would ultimately unite Humans with a single cause that we are all one there are no brits and americans or germans.and wars would not happen with feloow humans.

    fred, September 2, 2014 at 2:41 am
  111. Basically for all scientists know, it was Gods doing. They just don’t want to admit that

    Charles, September 3, 2014 at 2:53 pm
  112. Reading # 20 makes me thought of this:
    what if the space/universe is like a piece of gel?
    Different “thickness”/folding across different area, making the speed of light to us observers as constant because we are at relatively the same point on that gel.
    What if actual speed of light is different across different area of the universe depending on its fold/”thickness”?
    It would explain why the origin of the light source does not affect how long light takes to get from point A to B.
    It doesn’t mean we can go beyond speed of light since that is the limit within that particular area of the gel, but if there is something outside of the gel, what that something would observe between different sections of the expanding gel would be different right?

    Brian Ong, September 8, 2014 at 1:35 am
  113. There is no such thing as space in its own can only create the distance between two objects by using energy and time to move them apart. You cannot create or destroy where does the energy come from for the universe to expand indefinately?
    I still say everything happens in the begining after the bigbang every thing was moving at the same speed in all directions(includind photons) at the speed of light. The photons for some or other reason slow down to a standstill relative to other matter having converted all their movement energy to light when a photon becomes visable it is standing dead still in relation to something else that is still moving at the so called speed of light.
    Willy Gauche’
    8 September 2014 18h00

    willy gauche, September 8, 2014 at 12:01 pm
  114. Wait a minute… Einstein “did not assert or hypothesize that the speed of light is a constant”? That doesn’t make any sense to me. In E=mc2 “C” represents the speed of light and stands for “constant,” does it not? If he didn’t regard the speed of light as a constant, why employ the term? or for that matter, if it doesn’t represent a constant, why does the designation exist at all?
    Also, if the speed of light is changeable over time, then doesn’t that mean the acceleration barrier also changes? Six billion years ago we couldn’t accelerate faster than, say, 400 million meters per second, but today, we can’t accelerate faster than 300 million meters per second because light has slowed down. How can that be?
    It makes it seem like there’s some law or process that governs the speed of objects, whether wave or particle, but not gravity or space-time, and when that process slows, it’s time to change the speed limit signs again. Is that the case?

    Christian, September 14, 2014 at 7:31 am
  115. If all photons travel at a constant speed, how can there be “redshift”?

    Mark Biddle, September 17, 2014 at 10:09 am
  116. I’m sorry but I don’t believe that light travels at the same speed no matter what your frame of reference is. I think that if I’m traveling from point A to point B at half the speed of light, and someone at point A shines a light towards point B, that the light would pass me on route from A to B, at a slower rate than if I were at a standstill. I just think that light is so fast that its impossible to make an accurate measurement to prove or disprove this. The only way that light would have the same speed no matter what your point of reference was, is if light was infinitely fast. ie – It moved from source to endpoint, no matter how far away, even from one side of the universe to another, instantaneously. or in other words, it doesn’t have a speed, its something that is everywhere at all times and is either switched on or off. The fact that light even has a speed, indicates that it would be traveling slower from your point of reference if you were traveling at 99% the speed of light in the exact same direction of the lights direction of travel.

    Richard, September 17, 2014 at 12:41 pm
  117. First to clear up a misconception in the article.

    The big bang was a singularity in time, where black holes are a singularity in space. The author is thinking of the universe like a black hole.

    It is generally accepted in the scientific community that the universe was infinite in size at the instance of the big bang, with a large but finite mass an energy per unit of space.

    When the big bang happened, space itself expanded, and the universe got less dense and cooler (less energy)as the result.

    The raisin bread analogy is good, however the raisin bread is infinite in size, even at the time of the big bang. The universe was never smaller than a car.

    You ask how could something infinite in size, can get infinitely bigger. Well all infinities are not created equal. Do a google search on “transfinite numbers”, but a warning; this is not light reading.

    Lord Sloth, October 1, 2014 at 2:45 pm
  118. Hi friends, nice post and good urging commented at this
    place, I am in fact enjoying by these.

    Alsoo visit my blog post – catering matrimonio

    catering matrimonio, October 10, 2014 at 5:49 pm
  119. @Richard Sept 17

    The big thing your missing is that it says everyone “Measures” light as the same speed. Which would be in a form of distance/time.

    The strange thing about traveling at near light speeds is there distances compress. So if an inertial observer measured your stationary spaceship as 1km, the observer would measure your 0.9c spaceship are less than 1km. Because you are compressed even if the light is moving past you at C, and you are moving at 0.9c, you would measure that it would pass your ship at C because to an inertial observer your meter stick would be shorter than a meter.

    Sorry for awful explanation. The speed of light, time dilation, and spacial compression are all interconnected. You cannot have one without the others. The connection is why everyone would “measure” the speed of light as C.

    AnonTutor, October 16, 2014 at 6:19 pm
  120. I have not read all the above yet, but from what I’ve seen so far, most of the “commentators”/ respondents are certainly more savvy than I am. Just a thought though: As everything is related to time, isn’t our “measure” or perception thereof what srews us? I mean, Second = 1/60 of a minute. Minute = 1/60 of an hour. Hour = 1/24 of one rotation of a planet etc?

    Jelke Punter, October 25, 2014 at 12:41 am
  121. There we go again. 300 million meters per 1/60th of 1/60th of 1/24th of a rotation of a planet.

    Jelke Punter, October 25, 2014 at 12:45 am
  122. Assuming there is a multiverse, are there any thoughts on how fast our universe is moving?

    Ron Judd, October 27, 2014 at 2:04 am
  123. For Mark Biddle. My understanding is that C remains constant for all observers but the frequency of the waves can vary, giving us an electromagnetic spectrum that has very short waves at one end and very light waves at the other. All parts of the EM spectrum are affected by the expansion of the universe and the movement of source of the waves away from the observer at speeds that accord with Hubble’s Law.

    Ron Judd, October 27, 2014 at 2:52 am
  124. It occurs to me that if it were possible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light, then light itself probably would. Since it doesn’t, what is limiting it ?

    Al Fresqueau, November 6, 2014 at 10:25 am
  125. For all those confused about the logical “impossibilities,” I highly recommend Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe. It is about string theory, but also has a highly detailed explanation of classical and quantum physics.

    Brooks Macdonald, November 12, 2014 at 11:27 am
  126. Why are there no more comments? Last one was two months ago???

    willy gauchew, November 21, 2014 at 12:10 pm
  127. If the universe expands at speeds greater than light, then doesn’t that make it impossible to determine the objective age of the universe? Naturally, we can determine it from our relative vantage point (where light speed is a “constant”), but doesn’t this prevent an objective assessment of its age from outside our vantage point? If this is true, could the universe be simultaneously “thousands” of years old and “billions” of years old?

    Honestly confused about this issue here.

    Curious George, December 17, 2014 at 9:56 pm
  128. The law of cause and effect worries me.if God created the universe where does God come from?
    Somewhere allong the line the law of cause and effect breaks down which means that all effects do not have to have a cause! Scary.

    willy gauchew, January 6, 2015 at 2:26 am
  129. Shifting reference points with different time measurements

    Measurements assume uniform motion. The Big Bang theories predict a point of inflation so that otherwise good formulas can be perpetuated as gospel, where the speed of light was exceeded, though the speed of light is constant. Inflation was not uniform motion if it occurred. The age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. The BB was 13.7B+ years ago. The measurements are made from the earth’s point of reference, assuming uniform motion of the bodies, which if we are honest we know weren’t uniform. We know now that the universe expansion is accelerating and getting bigger from red shifting. We can estimate what that rate of acceleration is now from our point of reference, but we don’t know what it was eons ago. We can only make semi-educated guesses. If Einstein was right, and the speed of light is maximum, from the point of view of the point of singularity, the universe cannot be older than the speed of light emanating from it, even with an inexplicable very temporary inflated start. The laws of physics either functional everywhere or not. Yet, we are convinced the universe is triple the diameter the speed of light could have traveled from the BB boom. We are sure of it, not just that it looks that way from our point of reference.

    If science keeps on trying to explain everything from the point of view of the earth, continued ignorance is assured.

    Michael, February 2, 2015 at 10:11 am
  130. The fact that C is relative to a vantage point would make measuring distances with no known point of reference to galaxies moving away from us impossible.

    Time is a measurement, as is gravity (My guess is that gravity is the effect of large mass/speed on the medium of space. They can be used in equations, but we should not expect them to behave as objects when they are out of our local environment.
    Therefore we have no way to predict how they will influence our equations of galaxies on the other side of the universe.

    Dark energy is only a prop to validate lifetimes worth of work based on faulty assumptions.
    Any theory that does not make verifiable predictions should be put aside.
    The entire astrophysicist community is “shocked” every time they make a new measurement. You would think they would eventually realize they are on the wrong track. One or more of our assumed “known” variables is wrong, at least on a universal scale.
    I do not believe in faith.

    Steve Windeler, February 10, 2015 at 9:07 am
  131. Willy. This argument for a creator always drives me nuts. Of course it’s far less ridiculous that nature was created by chance than an omnipotent being was. No sense taking people’s comfort from them unnecessarily however, unless you have an answer for them.
    Science can preach to you about the beginning of the universe, yet they have no theory to explain where all that mass and/or energy originated.
    Then there’s life, which we cannot define. We can’t even bring a blade of grass back to life once it’s gone. Where does it go?
    I get the feeling the answer is very simple, yet we cannot comprehend it at present.
    The only thing certain is that we are probably way off base. I wouldn’t worry about it. I feel like having an open mind is the key. It’s amazing to me how many people cannot even entertain the thought that they may be wrong.

    Our knowledge is finite, while our ignorance, by definition, is infinite. In a way, that comforts me.

    Steve Windeler, February 10, 2015 at 11:24 pm
  132. most of the comments are intelligent and i welcome them all, how ever most miss the point of einsteins theory. c is constant. period. time is not. take two trains travelling at 100mph. train a. and train b. train a is relative to us but train b is relative to time b. time b moves half as fast relative to us. train a in one hour travels 100 miles in one hour, meanwhile train b will travel 200 miles in one hour. strange as it seems, and as hard to grasp for most people to comprehend i know. but train b is going the same speed as train a relative to each other, but not to time. this fundamental charataristic chaused shock waves and helped give birth to modern quantum mechanics. you also have to bear in mind that the early universe was very,very,very,very hot. it was also a very,very,very,very high energy place. high energy+heat=bizzare, no truly bizzare outcomes. the laws of physics at high energy values breakdown and you end up at either 0 or infinty. which is what einstein wanted to remove from his work (quantum mechanics handles this very well, string theory even better). you see the problem isn’t that it can’t happen, the problem is WHY it happened. which gives birth to yet more questions. another issue most of you have is most think all the ellements existed back then too. they did not. only one or two existed at that point, and it was only after the cooling proccess that what we take for granted as matter appeared. as particles collided annd coelessed into larger denser particles. also try not to think of the big bang as that, but more accuarately a singularity in reverse.

    Greg S, February 12, 2015 at 6:48 am
  133. the only problem in science i have is God particle. I find it insulting to my faith in science as well demeaning others faith in religion to bellitle ones thought of who or what they are to one particle. if you was the pope and someone told you your master god was fleck of sand you would feel rather disturbed at this and call it blasphemy. like wise as a man of science i find it insulting that a fundamental particle could have a thought, a thought that could make everything out of nothing. but alas, we live in a time when one of the more modern popes favourit film was 2001, who could blame him though, its a very pretty film to watch!!. please don’t miss my point though, i am not for or against religion, or science. but faith is down to us all, not science, nor god. oh and this God particle, well that is the early universe and only by finding it can we really figure it out. you see faster than light travel isn’t possible, but slower than time at high velocities, well that is exciting, maybe with a god particle or two a device that warps space time without breaking light speed? yeah i am not talking time travel, but bending physics to our will, we know it’s possible, we can see it, it has been observed in the CBR (chosmic background radiation) its been seen in the huge red shifts. it is possible not in my lifetime though.

    Greg S, February 12, 2015 at 7:06 am
  134. another point most people don’t get either, is what the centre is, or whether we are on a bubble a ring or a bloody donut. we were all once at the centre. the furthest object seen by hubble, the crab nebula, andromeda. for all intense and purposes they are all the centre. you, me. the food in my stomache and the atoms in my urine ALL THE CENTRE. the device you are looking at reading this, everything around you is the centre of the universe. yeah i know its crazy right? we orbit the sun, so the sun is the centre of the universe right? yeah, it’s the centre of the universe. so the sun flings off a particle and whilst it takes on average 8 minutes for light to travel to earth, it arrives here and its still at the centre of the universe. you get in a space ship that breaks all laws of physics, you travel for 200,000,000,000 years at light speed and you arrive again at the centre of the universe. now that is crazy.

    Greg S, February 12, 2015 at 7:25 am
  135. my head hurts now, must sleep.

    Greg S, February 12, 2015 at 7:29 am
  136. My juxtaposition as a mathematician is that the speed of light is only a theory by Newton , Aristotle , and various other members off the great science of astrophysics Including Stephen Hawking, if all around us is travelling at a faster speed then it is possible to do the same, hope the technology catches up, and then we will grow younger than getting older, Einstein’s relativity law.

    Eric Gardiner, February 13, 2015 at 8:24 pm
  137. In the earth’s atmosphere it is the gravity force that entangles how fast an object might travel yet in space an expanding space of 45 miles a second per 3 million light years distance is also limited by the speed of this light. The calculations earlier illustrate the difference in speeds a ship might travel having the ability to do so – based on light speed in space due to the expansion of the field an affect that for all reason affects everything existing in the realm of space as a whole.
    We research further in this theory about light speed and its components (₠²)
    We research farther observing the state of the universe and its expanding space pressure and outline a more valuable direction to correct the arithmetic in special relativity and review how the universe’s expansion has barrier to how fast a mass will travel through space also. If gravity space is expanding accelerating faster than light or at 2.8 times light velocity this is what allows for gravity acceleration that which allows a moving vessel to travel at speeds close to twice light speed without preciseness. Einstein special relativity (SR) is able to prove based on its premises that nothing can propagate faster than the speed of light in forward time. Is our result for the speed of gravity an experimental falsification of SR? Because light retains chemistry speed limit does not have to define the result velocity of the space it is traveling in unless it has a positive energy. Whereas space propagates at a velocity faster than light does not make a object travel faster it only allows for as greater universal speed limit.
    In the arithmetic below we direct the value of the Hubble Recession approximately 45 miles per second per 3 million light years divide it with the full diameter of the universe at its event horizon or highest edge on the outside of the bubble divide this with 3 million light years and multiple that sum with 45 miles a second. Discovery of that sum of 450,000 miles per second in seconds with the speed of light and discover how fast space is at expansion its extreme and outside edge = 372,000 m/s plus 78,000 m/second. (2.8 ₠/v²) v=q
    We observe the swell of the space expansion is equal to just over twice light speed as shown in the other assignments also listed to be ‘The Swell’ meaning the pushing outwards of pressure of the bubble where the galaxies lay on the outer side of the bubble fabric surface.
    The fastest a ship can be accelerated or pushed at is 186,000 miles a second. Due to all other remedies acquired like the physical expansion of space the lack of energy in the vacuum and lack of mass increasing due to such energies in the space compartment theory add to the ships ability to forego its journey. Space itself is pulling apart at the seams, expanding at a rate of 74.3 plus or minus 2.1 kilometers (46.2 plus or minus 1.3 miles) per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is roughly 3 million light-years). What this means is that the galaxies are expanding away from each other at 450,000 miles a second per second. I have divided these miles of expansion with the speed of light and discover that the universe expansion rate allows a vessel top travel at speeds faster than light equaling about 2.8 thousand miles a second. Of course implies that the ship has the capacity to travel at that speed.
    This theory does not violate the theory of relativity which asserts the speed of light constant. Though relativity does include an expansion theory it is directed towards matter expanding relativity with its force with gravity. In Quanta Physics Theory the universe is expanding and since we reside in the Milky Way at the event horizon’s crest outside the expanding balloon we do not feel the affect of the expansion which allows us to experience the journey which in turn is what makes space a flatland and the universe without limit.. Galactic matter as such grows deeper and deeper into the vacuum of that space. It is essential that we travel at a velocity that would otherwise keep us from getting away from a condition of space that at its wits gets farther and farther away from us.
    We look at space with a zero point ground inflationary state and a maximum acceleration state of 2.8 c.v2. Traveling close these faster than light galaxy positions are crew ventures traveling at the same speed except to land in some inserted planet within one of these galaxies where upon landing velocity equals zero…..Rod Kawecki 2015.02.20

    Rod Kawecki, February 18, 2015 at 9:15 pm
  138. The Universe is round like a balloon. Its diameter is 93 billion light years across measuring as a balloon 229,000 mil light years. A ship travels in any direction will travel rite back to the place it launched. A ship traveling at the speed of light can accelerate up to close to 450,000 miles a second if it had the engine capacity to do it. This does not violate relativity – its based on the universe’s length as a balloon (450,000 miles a second) which allows it. Space is warp not the celestial matter in it that doesn’t change. But a ships speed can zoom to close that 2.7 light speed. Space is warp meaning that it was stretched, curved, bent and blown up creating a dark black hole that releases pressure from somewhere in the cosmos dark matter element. Matter survived without diminishing and lays on top of the warp space. What makes the matter in the universe to expand is the pressure from the hole in it. Space has been warp and as consisting as a empty expanding vacuum has a zero point vacuum ground density but since it doesn’t consist as a close compartment as relativity insist it does – means that there exist no real limit to a ship velocity traveling on this expanding bubble. THe galaxies orbit spreading at 2.7 miles a second per second away from each other at the edge of the universe. Physicists think that faster than light speeds in such a condition would illustrate a un-balance in the galactic orbitration speed meaning that the distance because of the expansion and its speed between galaxies is too much. We measure the distance between the galaxies and think how much they spread a part at 450,000 miles a second each second as way fast and way far a part. Its all happening at the edge of the universe. The room between celestial sphere at the edge is the oldest area of the balloon. As the balloon gets bigger and bigger more and more room is available making the velocity the sphere’s orbitrate giving them the velocity under the open pressurizing realm more freedom. We don’t feel this change in the realm pressure because we reside in its grip but we can measure it from a distance. The space it resides in – is warp from the beginning but retains as a emptyness. The speed a ship can travel through this warp ship can be measured a sum Quanta Physics Theory by this author Rod Kawecki has deciphered. We have measured the the speed between the galaxies and the velocity they expand at at the universe’s edge and divide that distance and separation velocity by the speed of light which equals 278,000 miles a second..divide this sum by the speed of light equals 2.7 thousand miles a second. This is how we decipher the available universal speed limit in the equation sum’s. Albert Einstein deciphered the universal speed limit saying it was the speed of light because light measures at both levels a mass scale and a non mass scale which fits well with measuring particle masses but does nothing for the universe’s speed limit. He deciphered these barriers with gravity and assume empty space as static electricity. He also assumed his speed limit with a close universe compartment or as a bubble that has a limited realm equilibrium of space. And its not – we reside outside the balloon or bubble surface. Reading The Quanta Physics theory you can discover the equations that prove this and why. Einstein also considered the zero point vacuum energy of open space possibly by adding a zero to his light made of ship. He never looked at squaring the velocity as in his equations but others have like Star Trek engine propulsion possibilities. The difference between general relativity and special relativity using time travel as a barrier traveling pass light speed you will time travel – is beyond the real truth. I have written five books using these deciphered changes found in relativity and my sixth will include the realm of the universe as I have mentioned in short length here but more are shown. All my books decipher as theory with faster than light hypothesis deciphered equations and explain the differences and why. I think we have to acknowledge a new beginning in a commercial space environment future from earth. I always wondered if god made a cat animal heaven like us – what do you think?

    Rod Kawecki, February 21, 2015 at 12:55 pm
  139. Wow, does this thing ever have legs.

    First post in 2007, and still going strong 8 years later.

    The problem arises from the fallacy of referring to c as the speed of light. It is NOT the speed of light, it is a constant of proportionality, derived from e/m. That proportionality is constant, not the speed of light. it is entirely coincidental that the speed of light approximates this value. There is no necessity for it.

    As for the problem of causality, this was once used as the reason why things could never travel faster than the speed of sound. If they did, they could hit us before we herd them. Of course, things CAN travel faster than the speed of sound. Just like sound waves, the light waves/particles would all bunch up in front of the object, and would hit us at exactly the same time the object hit us. No problems with causality. We just can’t see/hear it BEFORE it hits us.

    What IS a problem is the notion that the speed of light is the same, no matter what speed you are traveling. Thus, by this logic, if you were on a particle traveling at the speed of light, and projected a beam of light, that beam would be traveling at the speed of light relative to you, already traveling at the speed of light. Therefore, it would project ahead of you, even though you were traveling at the speed of light.

    This is not really a conundrum, because nothing says how FAR and how LONG it has to travel at the speed of light, relative to the object. Just that, AT THE QUANTUM TIME OF OBSERVATION, it has to be traveling at the speed of light relative to you. In the next quantum unit of time, it no longer has to be traveling at the speed of light relative to you, because it is no longer relative to you. Thus, it bunches up in front of you only during that one quantum of time.

    Justin Thyme, February 26, 2015 at 12:58 pm
  140. If space is expanding, then the measuring stick we use to measure the distance between two points is also expanding at the same rate. Thus, two objects one meter apart at time 0 will still be one meter apart at time 2. The measuring stick ‘expands’ at the same rate as ‘space’ (and the distance between the objects) is expanding.

    Space expands, along with everything in it.

    Thus, if distance is still the same, then speed being distance over time is the same, even though everything is going faster due to expansion.

    Justin Thyme, February 26, 2015 at 1:11 pm
post your comment