Tell me more ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 1 down vote favorite

Is this a postulate? I get the expansion of the universe, the addition of discrete bits of space time between me and a distant galaxy, until very distant parts of the universe are moving relative to me, faster than the speed of light. But the other sure seems like (giant steaming load of convenience) I think I get reasons why, because they don't have any other way to explain the size of the universe and so on. Just seems it would be much easier to say the universe is eternal and cyclical in nature, and call it a day!

share|improve this question
4  
from this and your other question about black holes, it seems like you are basing a lot of your conceptions on pop-science descriptions of phenomena. If you haven't learned the mathematics yet that's fine, but trying to poke holes in theories based on layman's analogies is a fairly futile endeavour – user2963 Jan 26 '12 at 23:17
1  
I'd have sworn that we'd done this already but I can't find a duplicate. – dmckee♦ Jan 26 '12 at 23:31
Possible duplicates: physics.stackexchange.com/q/26549/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic♦ 6 hours ago

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

There are rules about things moving through space faster than light - there is no rule about space expanding faster than light.

As long as it can't be used to transfer information then there is no problem with relativity.

share|improve this answer
So basically, this doesn't violate special relativity since information isn't moved FTL, it is created FTL? I might have understood it wrongly. – OmnipresentAbsence Feb 20 at 18:34

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.