if its true that there are stars where light rays travelling from earth has not reached?
If yes then it would mean if we find something faster then light to travel to those stars we would be able to see our past coz the light rays from our past has not been able to reach those stars.
Assuming that there is no loss of light energy in the space.
2006-11-27 23:04:24 · 8 answers · asked by vj_and_vj_and_only_vj 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Yes, it is true that there are stars and galaxies whose light has not yet reached Earth. This is because light travels at a finite speed (about 3.00E8 km/s). It does not lose energy to space either... and the only thing in space that disrupts light's path by any real amount is gravity.
When we look into the sky at night we are seeing the past. When we look at our Sun we are looking 8 minutes into the past (light from the Sun takes about 8 minutes to reach us)... The nearest stars to our Solar System are hundreds, even thousands of light-years away (a light-year is the measure of the distance that light travels in a year)... So, when you look at the stars in the sky, you are seeing them as they were 100's, 1000', if not millions or billions of years ago. Scientists, using our most advanced telescopes have looked as far back as when our Universe was only a baby (about 450 million years old). As the Universe is about 15-20 billion years old right now thats very far back in time.
To answer your question about faster-than-light travel. As we know physics today, that is impossible. Einstein and many other relativistic theortists have shown time and time again that faster-than-light travel has a high probablity of impossibility. Also, light speed and (if possible) faster than light speed travel would affect the traveler's perception of time relative to the inertial frame.
This is a basic theory in relativity and I really don't want to get into that.
2006-11-28 03:02:48 · answer #1 · answered by AresIV 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
light takes a long time to travel the great distances from the source in another galaxy, to where we perceive it (here on earth). Some of the stars that we can see (compare for arguments sake, our sun) may no longer exist. This occurs when the star deteriorates for whatever reason (becomes a red dwarf, or black hole). So what we can 'see' is effectively the past already, we're seeing the sky 'as it was' millions of years ago! As far as i'm aware, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so that can't be answered i'm afraid. but just thinking hypothetically, light is only perceived by the viewer, and we don't emit light, just refract it, so when we 'see' an image of someone else, we're seeing their refraction of light, by the time it hits our eyes and is processed by our brain, the moment has passed, so even if we could travel faster than the speed of light, we'd only be able to 'see' nanoseconds into our past.
2006-11-27 23:18:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My children were all adopted at the ages of 18 mos., 2 years and almost 3 years.... so they knew for the most part, that they had other parents - both birth and foster. Those are all relationships that we needed to validate with our children. My oldest son is the one who has always talked about meeting his birthmom. We have always been open and honest about what we know about his parents. We even have a few cards and letters that were sent to them that they love going through. I would absolutely support my childrens search as well as actively participate in it. I have to put myself in their shoes.... and also, how can I be threatened by someone who has given me the chance to be a mom to the most precious children? I'd love to meet them and thank them... I also have questions as an adoptive mom for their birthparents, so I am sure they have so many more that they will need answered someday. 100% supportive!
2016-05-22 21:52:21 · answer #3 · answered by Michelle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, that is the logical conclusion. Of course there are all sorts of practical problems, like not being able to travel that fast and not being able to see details as small as a planet, much less things on that planet, from such a great distance.
2006-11-28 01:27:03 · answer #4 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Light does not originate from earth.
Something faster than light would be quicker than my car .
2006-11-27 23:22:38 · answer #5 · answered by kevin_4508 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is the reason to conclude that nothing can go faster than light.
2006-11-27 23:14:23 · answer #6 · answered by Pearlsawme 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is absolutely true that if we travel faster than light and reach those planets we can see the past.But it is 'impossible' to travel faster than light.
2006-11-27 23:22:10 · answer #7 · answered by VinJas 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"... faster then light..." what exactly does that mean?
2006-11-27 23:12:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋