Guinness World Records: scientific illiteracy?

The 2005 edition ("Special 50th Anniversary Edition) of Guinness World
Records, contrasting "fifty years of change", gives information on the
category "Remotest known body" (in space) for 2005 and 1955 on page 8.
The entry for 1955 states in part: "There is reason to believe that
even remoter nebulae exist but, since it is possible that they are
receding faster than the speed of light (670,455,000 mph /
1,078,992,730 km/h), they would be beyond man's 'observable horizon'."

What theory is this based upon, if any, and how is the apparent
inconsistency (with relativity's requirement that massive objects
travel below the speed of light as measured by all observers)
explained?

Mark Adkins

wrote in message
oups.com...
The 2005 edition ("Special 50th Anniversary Edition) of Guinness World
Records, contrasting "fifty years of change", gives information on the
category "Remotest known body" (in space) for 2005 and 1955 on page 8.
The entry for 1955 states in part: "There is reason to believe that
even remoter nebulae exist but, since it is possible that they are
receding faster than the speed of light (670,455,000 mph /
1,078,992,730 km/h), they would be beyond man's 'observable horizon'."

What theory is this based upon, if any, and how is the apparent
inconsistency (with relativity's requirement that massive objects
travel below the speed of light as measured by all observers)
explained?

Mark Adkins



General Relativity does not place a constraint on how
fast regions of space may be separating. The velocity
of objects *through* space is limited by c.

" wrote in
oups.com:

The 2005 edition ("Special 50th Anniversary Edition) of Guinness World
Records, contrasting "fifty years of change", gives information on the
category "Remotest known body" (in space) for 2005 and 1955 on page 8.
The entry for 1955 states in part: "There is reason to believe that
even remoter nebulae exist but, since it is possible that they are
receding faster than the speed of light (670,455,000 mph /
1,078,992,730 km/h), they would be beyond man's 'observable horizon'."

What theory is this based upon, if any, and how is the apparent
inconsistency (with relativity's requirement that massive objects
travel below the speed of light as measured by all observers)
explained?

Mark Adkins


Space itself is expanding. All points are receding apart form each
other. The further two points are, the faster the move apart. At far
enough distances the recessional velocity will exceed C, and those
parts of the universe will be unobservable to us.

(The old balloon analogy)

Imagine blowing up a balloon. On the balloon are two spots. As
the balloon expands, the two spots move apart from each other.
Say that the maximum speed one can travel on the surface of the
balloon is 1 cm/sec. It is entirely possible that if you blow
up the balloon fast enough, and two spots are far enough apart,
that they will move apart faster than 1 cm/sec.

The surface of the balloon is two dimensional, but is expanding
in 3 dimension. Our universe is 3 dimensional and expanding in
4. It is entirely possible that due to the expansion of our
universe that two points within are far enough apart that the
expansion is pulling them apart faster than the speed of light.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Like censorship and not getting support help? Switch to Supernews!
They won't even answer questions through your ISP!

Greg Neill wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
The 2005 edition ("Special 50th Anniversary Edition) of Guinness World
Records, contrasting "fifty years of change", gives information on the
category "Remotest known body" (in space) for 2005 and 1955 on page 8.
The entry for 1955 states in part: "There is reason to believe that
even remoter nebulae exist but, since it is possible that they are
receding faster than the speed of light (670,455,000 mph /
1,078,992,730 km/h), they would be beyond man's 'observable horizon'."

What theory is this based upon, if any, and how is the apparent
inconsistency (with relativity's requirement that massive objects
travel below the speed of light as measured by all observers)
explained?

Mark Adkins



General Relativity does not place a constraint on how
fast regions of space may be separating. The velocity
of objects *through* space is limited by c.

General Relativity does not remove the relativistic constraints on the
relative speed of massive objects established by the Special Theory.
The question is not what is causing relative motion between two masses,
but only their relative velocity, since the equations contain a term
for relative velocity but not for the cause of that velocity. The
same problems (imaginary mass, temporal paradoxes, violation of
axiomatic premises, etc.) would obtain if faster than light massive
objects were postulated, regardless of cause. Care to explain how a
galaxy has imaginary mass, and what that means empirically?

Besides, the whole notion of an "expanding universe" is on logical
quicksand, independent of relativity (which itself doesn't stand up to
scrutiny). But then neither do the notions of "distance" and "time".
Windlestraws. I'm afraid it won't do.


Mark Adkins

wrote in message
oups.com...

General Relativity does not remove the relativistic constraints on the
relative speed of massive objects established by the Special Theory.
The question is not what is causing relative motion between two masses,
but only their relative velocity, since the equations contain a term
for relative velocity but not for the cause of that velocity. The
same problems (imaginary mass, temporal paradoxes, violation of
axiomatic premises, etc.) would obtain if faster than light massive
objects were postulated, regardless of cause. Care to explain how a
galaxy has imaginary mass, and what that means empirically?

Besides, the whole notion of an "expanding universe" is on logical
quicksand, independent of relativity (which itself doesn't stand up to
scrutiny). But then neither do the notions of "distance" and "time".
Windlestraws. I'm afraid it won't do.

Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial:

Can objects move away from us faster than the speed of light?
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#FTL