Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
"Speed of Light"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6278837" data-attributes="member: 40227"><p>Umbran already covered this, but I'll add to it. You need to be careful about the difference between coordinates and frames of reference in general relativity. A coordinate system can stretch throughout the universe (subtleties do exist, of course), but a reference frame is something that is attached to a single observer and only exists <strong>locally</strong>. An observer can only observe things at the same location, essentially. So you can't say, "I see that galaxy 50 megaparsecs away moving so fast." All you can say is that "That galaxy 50 megaparsecs away has a redshift of X," meaning we see the light from the galaxy at a longer wavelength than what it was when it was emitted (which we can tell by measuring "signposts" in the light from atomic transitions). Because we're used to the Doppler effect here on earth, people sometimes translate that redshift into a velocity, but it's not the same thing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What we usually think of as the "force of gravity" that, for example, makes the moon's path circle the earth, is not a force in the theory of general relativity. It is the path that the moon takes <em>in the absence of forces</em> but in the curved spacetime caused by the presence of the earth (and sun).</p><p></p><p></p><p>That was one the points of my previous post --- even if you make the mistake of thinking of redshift as a velocity, the conversion isn't a linear one in relativity.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All I can say to this interpretation of "expansion velocity" is ugh. This isn't a useful way of thinking about things in any practical sense. Here is one:</p><p></p><p>Imagine there is a grid extending through space. Galaxies are at fixed points on the grid and, to a good first approximation, <strong>don't move</strong> with respect to the grid. What happens is that the grid itself gets bigger. We get a redshift because the light waves also expand as the grid expands --- basically the peaks and troughs of the wave are at fixed grid points. </p><p></p><p>Back to velocities: the galaxies can of course move around on the grid even as the grid expands. This is called "proper motion" and is usually only noticeable for closer galaxies.</p><p></p><p>Last point: that arXiv paper is really not a good source, I think. It makes some ok points, but absolutely no one talks about recessional velocities like that. Basically, they have made up a new way to define "recessional velocity" just to try to make a mathematical point. I don't doubt their math, but they aren't making a lot of sense in terms of physics. The key point is that "the motion is not in any observer's inertial frame," which says that they're definition has no observational meaning.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="freyar, post: 6278837, member: 40227"] Umbran already covered this, but I'll add to it. You need to be careful about the difference between coordinates and frames of reference in general relativity. A coordinate system can stretch throughout the universe (subtleties do exist, of course), but a reference frame is something that is attached to a single observer and only exists [B]locally[/B]. An observer can only observe things at the same location, essentially. So you can't say, "I see that galaxy 50 megaparsecs away moving so fast." All you can say is that "That galaxy 50 megaparsecs away has a redshift of X," meaning we see the light from the galaxy at a longer wavelength than what it was when it was emitted (which we can tell by measuring "signposts" in the light from atomic transitions). Because we're used to the Doppler effect here on earth, people sometimes translate that redshift into a velocity, but it's not the same thing. What we usually think of as the "force of gravity" that, for example, makes the moon's path circle the earth, is not a force in the theory of general relativity. It is the path that the moon takes [I]in the absence of forces[/I] but in the curved spacetime caused by the presence of the earth (and sun). That was one the points of my previous post --- even if you make the mistake of thinking of redshift as a velocity, the conversion isn't a linear one in relativity. All I can say to this interpretation of "expansion velocity" is ugh. This isn't a useful way of thinking about things in any practical sense. Here is one: Imagine there is a grid extending through space. Galaxies are at fixed points on the grid and, to a good first approximation, [B]don't move[/B] with respect to the grid. What happens is that the grid itself gets bigger. We get a redshift because the light waves also expand as the grid expands --- basically the peaks and troughs of the wave are at fixed grid points. Back to velocities: the galaxies can of course move around on the grid even as the grid expands. This is called "proper motion" and is usually only noticeable for closer galaxies. Last point: that arXiv paper is really not a good source, I think. It makes some ok points, but absolutely no one talks about recessional velocities like that. Basically, they have made up a new way to define "recessional velocity" just to try to make a mathematical point. I don't doubt their math, but they aren't making a lot of sense in terms of physics. The key point is that "the motion is not in any observer's inertial frame," which says that they're definition has no observational meaning. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
"Speed of Light"
Top