>>16775754
Nta but assuming the information you're sending is light then it's still moving at 1c towards the craft moving away from the signal sender, so it will catch up eventually. Light moves at 1c regardless of the speed that its source is moving at.
The signal will just be redshifted.
>Can things receding from each other faster than 1c exchange information?
Not new information no. If light left one galaxy now it would never catch up to the other distant galaxy. But observers in each galaxy could still see the other galaxy through a telescope, but this light would have been emitted billions of years earlier. In the past the universe was less expanded and so the recession velocity was lower in the past, also the galaxy was closer to us. During the time when the recession velocity was less than c the galaxy emitted light that we continue to see today.
>>16775993
So we can never observe things receding from us faster than 1c, we can only infer that they do, assuming things continued on the trajectory they were at before they slipped beyond the information horizon
>>16775759
is it possible for a signal to be redshifted to the point that it doesn't exist, or does it just get infinitely weaker as the source approaches 1c receding from you?
>>16775993
It sounds like the Universe is all done and we just don't know it yet.
But thanks to Hubble, we will never find out.
Phenomenonologically speaking, the infinite, steady-state Universe is therefore confirmed.
>>16777039 >Phenomenonologically speaking, the infinite, steady-state Universe is therefore confirmed.
Nope. Still in conflict with observations. There were many more active galaxies and star formation in the past, which show galaxies evolve, inconsistent with steady-state.
the issue anon is that the responsive limit for our observation caps at below c and so children can not accurately discern between the speeds higher than c
>>16777300
Not in an expanding universe. Under standard cosmology the universe will continue to expand forever, the density of matter will always decrease. Star formation will eventually stop and stars will die off. The universe will tend to the heat death.
Steady state is the specific hypothesis that expansion is offset by matter creation. It is not just any cosmology which tends to some steady state. The density of matter is constant and galaxies should be the same at all time, which is violated by observational data.
>>16777948 >Not in an expanding universe.
Your point is moot. We are in a steadystate snowglobe and you're just waiting for photons that might never arrive.
And yet you keep thinking that if I shake harder, bigger loops, faster speeds, . . .
Next time, you'll try even harder.
Universal Halting Problem.
