Research Discussion: Pulsars Are NOT The Best Clocks

Pulsars Are NOT The Best Clocks
Posts: 8

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

HVAC
2010-04-08 08:39:20 EST
Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that produce highly periodic bursts
of radio waves. So accurate are pulsar signals that when they were
discovered, astronomers gave serious credence to the idea that they
were evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe because
they were unmatched by anything physicists could make on Earth. This
has lead to the widespread belief that pulsars are the most accurate
clocks in the Universe.

40 years later, astronomers have yet to work out exactly how pulsars
generate such accurate signals. But physicists on the other hand, have
been working hard to find their own ways to better the performance of
pulsars.

Today, John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western
Australia ask whether Earth-bound time pieces have usurped their
astrophysical rivals as the best clocks in the Universe.

On the face of it, the answer is pretty clear cut to anybody who has
followed the amazing advances in quantum optics in the last few years.

"The accuracy and stability of terrestrial clocks have improved more
than an order of magnitude, on average, in each decade over the last
60 years," say Hartnett and Luiten. Today, the best optical lattice
neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability
approaching one part in 10^17.

By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing
stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last
20 years. The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one
part in 10^15 at best.

That means that terrestrial clocks can rightly be crowned the best
clocks in the Universe, say Hartnett and Luiten.

That's impressive but there is one other issue to consider before
physicists in quantum optics labs can start popping champagne corks.
This is the question of long term stability.

It's all very well to build a clock that can outperform pulsars for a
few months or years but try it for a significantly longer period of
time, say centuries or millennia, and a whole host of other issues
raise their heads. The makers of the Clock of the Long Now have
already studied this issue. They've asked how you can guarantee a
stable power supply over such a period? How do you store spare parts
or ensure that the knowledge to effect a repair survives? Can you even
rely on the survival of the human race over these periods?

The answers to these questions suggest that it will be very difficult
to run a wristwatch let alone a trapped ion clock over this time-
scale. And yet in thousands of years pulsars will still be producing
their regular heart beat.

Earth-bound clocks may be able to outperform pulsars over human time-
scales but to do it over significantly longer time-scales is another
challenge altogether. Terrestrial clocks may have stolen the crown for
now. Keeping it will be much harder.

Fred Williams
2010-04-08 09:20:59 EST
HVAC wrote:
> Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that produce highly periodic bursts
> of radio waves. So accurate are pulsar signals that when they were
> discovered, astronomers gave serious credence to the idea that they
> were evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe because
> they were unmatched by anything physicists could make on Earth. This
> has lead to the widespread belief that pulsars are the most accurate
> clocks in the Universe.
>
> 40 years later, astronomers have yet to work out exactly how pulsars
> generate such accurate signals. But physicists on the other hand, have
> been working hard to find their own ways to better the performance of
> pulsars.
>
> Today, John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western
> Australia ask whether Earth-bound time pieces have usurped their
> astrophysical rivals as the best clocks in the Universe.
>
> On the face of it, the answer is pretty clear cut to anybody who has
> followed the amazing advances in quantum optics in the last few years.
>
> "The accuracy and stability of terrestrial clocks have improved more
> than an order of magnitude, on average, in each decade over the last
> 60 years," say Hartnett and Luiten. Today, the best optical lattice
> neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability
> approaching one part in 10^17.
>
> By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing
> stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last
> 20 years.

Does that suggest the 'intelligent life' has improved them?

> The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one
> part in 10^15 at best.
>
> That means that terrestrial clocks can rightly be crowned the best
> clocks in the Universe, say Hartnett and Luiten.
>
> That's impressive but there is one other issue to consider before
> physicists in quantum optics labs can start popping champagne corks.
> This is the question of long term stability.
>
> It's all very well to build a clock that can outperform pulsars for a
> few months or years but try it for a significantly longer period of
> time, say centuries or millennia, and a whole host of other issues
> raise their heads. The makers of the Clock of the Long Now have
> already studied this issue. They've asked how you can guarantee a
> stable power supply over such a period? How do you store spare parts
> or ensure that the knowledge to effect a repair survives? Can you even
> rely on the survival of the human race over these periods?
>
> The answers to these questions suggest that it will be very difficult
> to run a wristwatch let alone a trapped ion clock over this time-
> scale. And yet in thousands of years pulsars will still be producing
> their regular heart beat.
>
> Earth-bound clocks may be able to outperform pulsars over human time-
> scales but to do it over significantly longer time-scales is another
> challenge altogether. Terrestrial clocks may have stolen the crown for
> now. Keeping it will be much harder.


Bert
2010-04-08 11:43:08 EST
On Apr 8, 9:20 am, "Fred Williams" <no...@nowhere.ca> wrote:
> HVAC wrote:
> > Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that produce highly periodic bursts
> > of radio waves. So accurate are pulsar signals that when they were
> > discovered, astronomers gave serious credence to the idea that they
> > were evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe because
> > they were unmatched by anything physicists could make on Earth. This
> > has lead to the widespread belief that pulsars are the most accurate
> > clocks in the Universe.
>
> > 40 years later, astronomers have yet to work out exactly how pulsars
> > generate such accurate signals. But physicists on the other hand, have
> > been working hard to find their own ways to better the performance of
> > pulsars.
>
> > Today, John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western
> > Australia ask whether Earth-bound time pieces have usurped their
> > astrophysical rivals as the best clocks in the Universe.
>
> > On the face of it, the answer is pretty clear cut to anybody who has
> > followed the amazing advances in quantum optics in the last few years.
>
> > "The accuracy and stability of terrestrial clocks have improved more
> > than an order of magnitude, on average, in each decade over the last
> > 60 years," say Hartnett and Luiten. Today, the best optical lattice
> > neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability
> > approaching one part in 10^17.
>
> > By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing
> > stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last
> > 20 years.
>
> Does that suggest the 'intelligent life' has improved them?
>
>
>
> > The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one
> > part in 10^15 at best.
>
> > That means that terrestrial clocks can rightly be crowned the best
> > clocks in the Universe, say Hartnett and Luiten.
>
> > That's impressive but there is one other issue to consider before
> > physicists in quantum optics labs can start popping champagne corks.
> > This is the question of long term stability.
>
> > It's all very well to build a clock that can outperform pulsars for a
> > few months or years but try it for a significantly longer period of
> > time, say centuries or millennia, and a whole host of other issues
> > raise their heads. The makers of the Clock of the Long Now have
> > already studied this issue. They've asked how you can guarantee a
> > stable power supply over such a period? How do you store spare parts
> > or ensure that the knowledge to effect a repair survives? Can you even
> > rely on the survival of the human race over these periods?
>
> > The answers to these questions suggest that it will be very difficult
> > to run a wristwatch let alone a trapped ion clock over this time-
> > scale. And yet in thousands of years pulsars will still be producing
> > their regular heart beat.
>
> > Earth-bound clocks may be able to outperform pulsars over human time-
> > scales but to do it over significantly longer time-scales is another
> > challenge altogether. Terrestrial clocks may have stolen the crown for
> > now. Keeping it will be much harder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes man made clocks can keep best time only losing a second in 2
million years. Best clock for space ship trying to reach c is a light
clock. Yes if a person is in a ship trying to get to c he can tell its
him that is moving,and not the sceany trebert

2010-04-08 11:50:24 EST
On Apr 8, 9:20 am, "Fred Williams" <no...@nowhere.ca> wrote:
> HVAC wrote:
> > Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that produce highly periodic bursts
> > of radio waves. So accurate are pulsar signals that when they were
> > discovered, astronomers gave serious credence to the idea that they
> > were evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe because
> > they were unmatched by anything physicists could make on Earth. This
> > has lead to the widespread belief that pulsars are the most accurate
> > clocks in the Universe.
>
> > 40 years later, astronomers have yet to work out exactly how pulsars
> > generate such accurate signals. But physicists on the other hand, have
> > been working hard to find their own ways to better the performance of
> > pulsars.
>
> > Today, John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western
> > Australia ask whether Earth-bound time pieces have usurped their
> > astrophysical rivals as the best clocks in the Universe.
>
> > On the face of it, the answer is pretty clear cut to anybody who has
> > followed the amazing advances in quantum optics in the last few years.
>
> > "The accuracy and stability of terrestrial clocks have improved more
> > than an order of magnitude, on average, in each decade over the last
> > 60 years," say Hartnett and Luiten. Today, the best optical lattice
> > neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability
> > approaching one part in 10^17.
>
> > By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing
> > stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last
> > 20 years.
>
> Does that suggest the 'intelligent life' has improved them?
>
>
>
> > The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one
> > part in 10^15 at best.
>
> > That means that terrestrial clocks can rightly be crowned the best
> > clocks in the Universe, say Hartnett and Luiten.
>
> > That's impressive but there is one other issue to consider before
> > physicists in quantum optics labs can start popping champagne corks.
> > This is the question of long term stability.
>
> > It's all very well to build a clock that can outperform pulsars for a
> > few months or years but try it for a significantly longer period of
> > time, say centuries or millennia, and a whole host of other issues
> > raise their heads. The makers of the Clock of the Long Now have
> > already studied this issue. They've asked how you can guarantee a
> > stable power supply over such a period? How do you store spare parts
> > or ensure that the knowledge to effect a repair survives? Can you even
> > rely on the survival of the human race over these periods?
>
> > The answers to these questions suggest that it will be very difficult
> > to run a wristwatch let alone a trapped ion clock over this time-
> > scale. And yet in thousands of years pulsars will still be producing
> > their regular heart beat.
>
> > Earth-bound clocks may be able to outperform pulsars over human time-
> > scales but to do it over significantly longer time-scales is another
> > challenge altogether. Terrestrial clocks may have stolen the crown for
> > now. Keeping it will be much harder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

nightbat

It means without human interface and survival nature's
time keeping wins, time scales of terrestial clocks have relative
limited Earth based period, pulsars exceed such.

the nightbat

Bert
2010-04-08 17:51:40 EST
On Apr 8, 11:50 am, "night...@home.ffni.com" <night...@home.ffni.com>
wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:20 am, "Fred Williams" <no...@nowhere.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > HVAC wrote:
> > > Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that produce highly periodic bursts
> > > of radio waves. So accurate are pulsar signals that when they were
> > > discovered, astronomers gave serious credence to the idea that they
> > > were evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe because
> > > they were unmatched by anything physicists could make on Earth. This
> > > has lead to the widespread belief that pulsars are the most accurate
> > > clocks in the Universe.
>
> > > 40 years later, astronomers have yet to work out exactly how pulsars
> > > generate such accurate signals. But physicists on the other hand, have
> > > been working hard to find their own ways to better the performance of
> > > pulsars.
>
> > > Today, John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western
> > > Australia ask whether Earth-bound time pieces have usurped their
> > > astrophysical rivals as the best clocks in the Universe.
>
> > > On the face of it, the answer is pretty clear cut to anybody who has
> > > followed the amazing advances in quantum optics in the last few years.
>
> > > "The accuracy and stability of terrestrial clocks have improved more
> > > than an order of magnitude, on average, in each decade over the last
> > > 60 years," say Hartnett and Luiten. Today, the best optical lattice
> > > neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability
> > > approaching one part in 10^17.
>
> > > By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing
> > > stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last
> > > 20 years.
>
> > Does that suggest the 'intelligent life' has improved them?
>
> > > The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one
> > > part in 10^15 at best.
>
> > > That means that terrestrial clocks can rightly be crowned the best
> > > clocks in the Universe, say Hartnett and Luiten.
>
> > > That's impressive but there is one other issue to consider before
> > > physicists in quantum optics labs can start popping champagne corks.
> > > This is the question of long term stability.
>
> > > It's all very well to build a clock that can outperform pulsars for a
> > > few months or years but try it for a significantly longer period of
> > > time, say centuries or millennia, and a whole host of other issues
> > > raise their heads. The makers of the Clock of the Long Now have
> > > already studied this issue. They've asked how you can guarantee a
> > > stable power supply over such a period? How do you store spare parts
> > > or ensure that the knowledge to effect a repair survives? Can you even
> > > rely on the survival of the human race over these periods?
>
> > > The answers to these questions suggest that it will be very difficult
> > > to run a wristwatch let alone a trapped ion clock over this time-
> > > scale. And yet in thousands of years pulsars will still be producing
> > > their regular heart beat.
>
> > > Earth-bound clocks may be able to outperform pulsars over human time-
> > > scales but to do it over significantly longer time-scales is another
> > > challenge altogether. Terrestrial clocks may have stolen the crown for
> > > now. Keeping it will be much harder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> nightbat
>
>             It means without human interface and survival nature's
> time keeping wins, time scales of terrestial clocks have relative
> limited Earth based period, pulsars exceed such.
>
>             the nightbat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mother nature has two time zones Micro for very fast and accurate,and
Macro that can be off as much as a second in 3 million years. So its
best we go with Plank time. Plack time gives us big bang measurements
at first 10^-32 seconds Gravity controls time after that Who was the
first man to measure earth's time? TreBert

St. Jackanapes
2010-04-08 18:36:22 EST

In alt.atheism, HVAC said...

>
> Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that produce highly periodic bursts
> of radio waves. So accurate are pulsar signals that when they were
> discovered, astronomers gave serious credence to the idea that they
> were evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe because
> they were unmatched by anything physicists could make on Earth. This
> has lead to the widespread belief that pulsars are the most accurate
> clocks in the Universe.
>
> 40 years later, astronomers have yet to work out exactly how pulsars
> generate such accurate signals. But physicists on the other hand, have
> been working hard to find their own ways to better the performance of
> pulsars.
>
> Today, John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western
> Australia ask whether Earth-bound time pieces have usurped their
> astrophysical rivals as the best clocks in the Universe.
>
> On the face of it, the answer is pretty clear cut to anybody who has
> followed the amazing advances in quantum optics in the last few years.
>
> "The accuracy and stability of terrestrial clocks have improved more
> than an order of magnitude, on average, in each decade over the last
> 60 years," say Hartnett and Luiten. Today, the best optical lattice
> neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability
> approaching one part in 10^17.
>
> By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing
> stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last
> 20 years. The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one
> part in 10^15 at best.
>
> That means that terrestrial clocks can rightly be crowned the best
> clocks in the Universe, say Hartnett and Luiten.
>
> That's impressive but there is one other issue to consider before
> physicists in quantum optics labs can start popping champagne corks.
> This is the question of long term stability.
>
> It's all very well to build a clock that can outperform pulsars for a
> few months or years but try it for a significantly longer period of
> time, say centuries or millennia, and a whole host of other issues
> raise their heads. The makers of the Clock of the Long Now have
> already studied this issue. They've asked how you can guarantee a
> stable power supply over such a period? How do you store spare parts
> or ensure that the knowledge to effect a repair survives? Can you even
> rely on the survival of the human race over these periods?
>
> The answers to these questions suggest that it will be very difficult
> to run a wristwatch let alone a trapped ion clock over this time-
> scale. And yet in thousands of years pulsars will still be producing
> their regular heart beat.
>
> Earth-bound clocks may be able to outperform pulsars over human time-
> scales but to do it over significantly longer time-scales is another
> challenge altogether. Terrestrial clocks may have stolen the crown for
> now. Keeping it will be much harder.

I kinda like my cheap bedside GE digital clock. I've had it for years - I got it at
Walt-Mart for about $8. The alarm never fails as long as I remember to set the
switch after setting the time.

--
St. Jackanapes
-------------------------------
Anti-Jesus Forum: http://www.voy.com/20630/























Brad Guth
2010-04-10 08:54:35 EST
On Apr 8, 8:43 am, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 9:20 am, "Fred Williams" <no...@nowhere.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > HVAC wrote:
> > > Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that produce highly periodic bursts
> > > of radio waves. So accurate are pulsar signals that when they were
> > > discovered, astronomers gave serious credence to the idea that they
> > > were evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe because
> > > they were unmatched by anything physicists could make on Earth. This
> > > has lead to the widespread belief that pulsars are the most accurate
> > > clocks in the Universe.
>
> > > 40 years later, astronomers have yet to work out exactly how pulsars
> > > generate such accurate signals. But physicists on the other hand, have
> > > been working hard to find their own ways to better the performance of
> > > pulsars.
>
> > > Today, John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western
> > > Australia ask whether Earth-bound time pieces have usurped their
> > > astrophysical rivals as the best clocks in the Universe.
>
> > > On the face of it, the answer is pretty clear cut to anybody who has
> > > followed the amazing advances in quantum optics in the last few years.
>
> > > "The accuracy and stability of terrestrial clocks have improved more
> > > than an order of magnitude, on average, in each decade over the last
> > > 60 years," say Hartnett and Luiten. Today, the best optical lattice
> > > neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability
> > > approaching one part in 10^17.
>
> > > By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing
> > > stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last
> > > 20 years.
>
> > Does that suggest the 'intelligent life' has improved them?
>
> > > The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one
> > > part in 10^15 at best.
>
> > > That means that terrestrial clocks can rightly be crowned the best
> > > clocks in the Universe, say Hartnett and Luiten.
>
> > > That's impressive but there is one other issue to consider before
> > > physicists in quantum optics labs can start popping champagne corks.
> > > This is the question of long term stability.
>
> > > It's all very well to build a clock that can outperform pulsars for a
> > > few months or years but try it for a significantly longer period of
> > > time, say centuries or millennia, and a whole host of other issues
> > > raise their heads. The makers of the Clock of the Long Now have
> > > already studied this issue. They've asked how you can guarantee a
> > > stable power supply over such a period? How do you store spare parts
> > > or ensure that the knowledge to effect a repair survives? Can you even
> > > rely on the survival of the human race over these periods?
>
> > > The answers to these questions suggest that it will be very difficult
> > > to run a wristwatch let alone a trapped ion clock over this time-
> > > scale. And yet in thousands of years pulsars will still be producing
> > > their regular heart beat.
>
> > > Earth-bound clocks may be able to outperform pulsars over human time-
> > > scales but to do it over significantly longer time-scales is another
> > > challenge altogether. Terrestrial clocks may have stolen the crown for
> > > now. Keeping it will be much harder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes man made clocks can keep best time only losing a second in 2
> million years. Best clock for space ship trying to reach c is a light
> clock. Yes if a person is in a ship trying to get to c he can tell its
> him that is moving,and not the sceany  trebert

Photon blueshift/redshift as measured on the fly is what tells the
velocity in relation to other items.

~ BG

Brad Guth
2010-04-10 09:49:07 EST
On Apr 8, 2:51 pm, bert <herbertglazie...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 11:50 am, "night...@home.ffni.com" <night...@home.ffni.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 9:20 am, "Fred Williams" <no...@nowhere.ca> wrote:
>
> > > HVAC wrote:
> > > > Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that produce highly periodic bursts
> > > > of radio waves. So accurate are pulsar signals that when they were
> > > > discovered, astronomers gave serious credence to the idea that they
> > > > were evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe because
> > > > they were unmatched by anything physicists could make on Earth. This
> > > > has lead to the widespread belief that pulsars are the most accurate
> > > > clocks in the Universe.
>
> > > > 40 years later, astronomers have yet to work out exactly how pulsars
> > > > generate such accurate signals. But physicists on the other hand, have
> > > > been working hard to find their own ways to better the performance of
> > > > pulsars.
>
> > > > Today, John Hartnett and Andre Luiten at the University of Western
> > > > Australia ask whether Earth-bound time pieces have usurped their
> > > > astrophysical rivals as the best clocks in the Universe.
>
> > > > On the face of it, the answer is pretty clear cut to anybody who has
> > > > followed the amazing advances in quantum optics in the last few years.
>
> > > > "The accuracy and stability of terrestrial clocks have improved more
> > > > than an order of magnitude, on average, in each decade over the last
> > > > 60 years," say Hartnett and Luiten. Today, the best optical lattice
> > > > neutral atom clocks and trapped ion clocks have a frequency stability
> > > > approaching one part in 10^17.
>
> > > > By contrast, as more pulsars have been discovered, their timing
> > > > stability has improved by less than an order of magnitude in the last
> > > > 20 years.
>
> > > Does that suggest the 'intelligent life' has improved them?
>
> > > > The best millisecond pulsars have a stability of only one
> > > > part in 10^15 at best.
>
> > > > That means that terrestrial clocks can rightly be crowned the best
> > > > clocks in the Universe, say Hartnett and Luiten.
>
> > > > That's impressive but there is one other issue to consider before
> > > > physicists in quantum optics labs can start popping champagne corks.
> > > > This is the question of long term stability.
>
> > > > It's all very well to build a clock that can outperform pulsars for a
> > > > few months or years but try it for a significantly longer period of
> > > > time, say centuries or millennia, and a whole host of other issues
> > > > raise their heads. The makers of the Clock of the Long Now have
> > > > already studied this issue. They've asked how you can guarantee a
> > > > stable power supply over such a period? How do you store spare parts
> > > > or ensure that the knowledge to effect a repair survives? Can you even
> > > > rely on the survival of the human race over these periods?
>
> > > > The answers to these questions suggest that it will be very difficult
> > > > to run a wristwatch let alone a trapped ion clock over this time-
> > > > scale. And yet in thousands of years pulsars will still be producing
> > > > their regular heart beat.
>
> > > > Earth-bound clocks may be able to outperform pulsars over human time-
> > > > scales but to do it over significantly longer time-scales is another
> > > > challenge altogether. Terrestrial clocks may have stolen the crown for
> > > > now. Keeping it will be much harder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > nightbat
>
> >             It means without human interface and survival nature's
> > time keeping wins, time scales of terrestial clocks have relative
> > limited Earth based period, pulsars exceed such.
>
> >             the nightbat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mother nature has two time zones Micro for very fast and accurate,and
> Macro that can be off as much as a second in 3 million years. So its
> best we go with Plank time. Plack time gives us big bang measurements
> at first 10^-32 seconds  Gravity controls time after that  Who was the
> first man to measure earth's time? TreBert

We have no objective way of knowing exactly how fast we're going,
except in relationship to other items. For all we know, we could be
exceeding the speed of light as is, just like those outer most
galaxies that have supposedly been receding away from us at the speed
of light could actually be traveling FTL in relation to other other
galaxies of 28 billion light years distant going in the opposite
direction, or those of other universes.

~ BG
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron