How long does it take to get to the closest star with our present techology, and how long with tech that is at the speed of light?
131656
about 186,000 miles per second.  With our present technology, it would take hundreds of thousands of years. At the speed of light, it would only take thousands of years.
146646
Well the nearest star system is light years away. So if they send one, we won't find out the findings. Besides, how would we send commands and receive them, they would have to travel light years of distance. So I would say no.
359231
The speed of light is Warp 1\n\n2xspeed of ;ight is warp 2\n\nand so on and so forth.
229022
There are numerous problems with your assertion: you measure the universe's size using the farthest object viewed from earth (13.7 billion ly).  Then you assume (from your equations) that earth is at the center of the universe (a somewhat egotistical idea), also, you forget to measure in the opposite direction (galaxies are visible at 180 degrees of the one observed to be 13.7 billion ly from here). Add to all these your interesting equivalent of the speed of light...apparently you believe the speed of light to be somewhere around 34.2 meters per second (a mere 226.4 times slower than the space shuttle).  If you are going to try to figure out the size of the universe, do a little more research and brush up on your math...for example: \n\n"From new data collected from a space probe examining the Cosmic Background Radiation, astronomers estimate the universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide. Actually, it’s long been known that the universe was a lot wider than 27.4 billion light-years; this latest research tells us how much wider.\n\nAccording to researchers writing in the journal Physics Review Letters, the universe must have expanded much faster than light in its early stage." *\n\nSo take into account that one light year is 9,467,280,000,000 km ** and you get...\n\n1.476895680 x 10^24 km\n\nthat's 1 octillion, 476 septillion, 895 sextillion, 680 quintillion kilometers wide (or 1 quadrilliard, 476 quadrillion, 895 trilliard, 680 trillion kilometers wide for those following the European system of counting)...and that disregards the continued expansion since the observations.\n\nOf course there are also quite a few scientists who affirm that the universe is infinite, so, in the end, nobody really knows.
191676
The Milky Way is moving at about 1,342,161 mph towards a galactic cluster known as Abell 3627\nhttp://answerway.com/expertans.php?category=243&expertname=Locii&catnam=Physics\n\nOur galaxy is NOT moving towards the center (or centre) of the universe. The universe has no center!\nhttp://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.9.FAQ\n\nGod should be spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
611399
Not only will we need to move to the moon or another planet, we will need to develope the capability to move to another galaxy outside of the galaxies in our local cluster.\n\nThe Milky Way Galaxy (where we are located) and the Andromeda Galaxy (one of our neighboring galaxies) are on a collision course so we need to be gone when this happens.  Of course, current estimates say this is 3 to 5 billion years away so we may have time.  Some other estimates give us only 200 million years.
442011
I'm stepping waaaayy out on a limb because I deal with radio frequencies but, \n\nif it takes .5 ns to process from memory, that leaves 1.5 ns for pulse to travel there and back.  \n.75 ns to travel to.\n.75 ns to travel from.\n\nAssuming velocity times are in free space (vacuum), which your statement doesn't say, then:\n\nd=c*t\n\n(c) 299,792,458 km/s  x( t) .75  = \n\nFree Space = .2248443435 m/ns (.225 m/ns)(22.5cm/ns)\n\nIf you take into account the velocity factor of silicon \n(said to reduce the velocity of light by a factor of 200 in first of article source, and 300 in second article of source)\n\nI think it's next to impossible to come up with a figure other than in a perfect medium, until scientists decide a consensus of opinion on the velicity factor of silicon.\n\nClose?\nI tried.
370321
The Sun moves quite fast around the center of our Galaxy, at a speed of about 800,000 kilometers per hour (500,000 miles per hour).  Even still, it takes the Sun about 250 million years to complete one orbit!\n\nA few years ago, the most massive star was the Pistol star.  It's about 100 times more massive than the Sun is.  In fact, any star that massive won't be stable.  The Pistol star got its name because it is the source of the Pistol nebula - the Pistol star is unstable and is constantly blowing off material, material we see as the Pistol nebula.\n\nWhen a star begins to "die" it expands into a red giant or red supergiant.  The largest (in size) supergiants can be larger than the size of Jupiter's orbit.  Such a star won't last too long (only a few million years, if that) before it explodes as a supernova.
97982
The Sun has been bright in modulated radio frequencies for about 110 years.\nA bubble of radio waves, including TV signals, have been rushing out at the speed of light and now this sphere is 220 light years in diameter. \n\nAs to reaching other galaxies, it isn't even close to exiting our own Milky way yet.\n\nThe nearest significant galaxy sized object, the Large Magellanic Cloud is 150,000 light years away.\nSo they will have to wait a while for "I love Lucy" and "Sgt. Bilko" LOL
350228
At a speed of 0.95C, twin A's clock is:\nt1=1/sqrt(1-V^2/C^2) \n\nT=1/sqrt176,700,000^2/186,000,000^2)\nor a ratio of 3.2:1 time dilation.\n\nTotal trip time: \n2*(37,000,000+{2*37,000,000*0.95})\n\nTwin B, (although long dead) will be 77,700,020 years old. Twin A, (also long dead) will ONLY be 24,281,256 years old (earth time)\n\nThis does not take into account the acceleration factor on the time dilation effects - which, obviously, are moot in this example.\n\nBottom line - to travel to a planet that is 37,000,000 light years away, you'd better go a hell of a lot faster or find a short cut.\n\nAdded: OK, let's look at 37 light years.\nTotal travel time = 77.7 years\nThe ratio is the same  3.2:1 time dilation\nThe earth twin will be 97.7 years old.\nThe traveler twin will be 44.3 years old
244853
About 100000 light years diameter.   We're about 30000 light years from the centre.   The centre of the disc part of the galaxy is about 3000 light years thick, and it gets thinner towards the edge.   But there's a spherical halo containing a few stars surrounding the disc structure.
488671
this is an interesting question, and i think what you describe is a fact scientists may underestimate.\nThe speed we observe distant objects to move away from us is not unmeasurable. From comparing specific stars in galaxies we have an idea about its distance, from its 'redshift' (sometimes blueshift) we know very precisly at what speed a distant object travels.\nIf you ask if an object is really there...\nyes and no .. it WAS there, and there i think is something odd in our theories about the history of the universe.\nCause if someone observes a Quasar at a distance of 12 billion lightyears, i hear them calling .. 'the universe has an age of about 13 billion years, cause we can see a quasar at 12 billion' , or so.   but HEY  it is at 12 billion years PLUS the ammount of lightyears  more distant, and probably look very different.\nI never saw a calculation considering this, so i believe the universe is much older than 13.something billion years.\n\nwhat we do is putting together a puzzle of small fragments. \nbeginning of how a star is born, how long it burns, how its life ends, and when.   We collect samples as snapshots, measuring distances, but i'm afraid noone really cares about, that such an object with given redshift, has already travelled an enormous ammount of lightyears beyond its currently observed position.\n\nsince i never read about correctional calculations for the exact location, distance and (maybe) shape of a distant galaxy, i start having my doubts that it needs to have 'dark matter'  to explain the galaxies unusual rotation, for example.\n\nsooo when do we read about how it was calculated where a quasar for example sits ? i've not yet found such a calculation, but i probably digged not enough for it.
312536
*sighs* Why can't people do any research on their own? Anyway... you are traveling through time right now, how else did you push those keys in sequence to form your question?\n\nI think that what you are attempting to refer to (lol I'm never gonna get a best answer replying like this) Is that as you travel faster and faster, closer and closer to the speed of light, time flow for you slows down, and the misconception of the public that if you go faster than light you will reverse time. WRONG!\n\nThat's not specifically what you asked though, so I will focus on teh misconceptions regarding the speed of light. First of all, accelerating mass to the speed of light is impossible as it would require an infinite amount of energy, so your question is meaningless. Second, since your question is meaningless tehre is nothing more to say except maybe a supporting and enlightening example. Third, I do not feel creative tonight so that example is gonna have to pass tis time, unless you email me and I will explain it better.\n\ndavid_lapierre@sbcglobal.net\n\nUnless this is just a school project, which I doubt since they are going donw the drain is sciences these days... you might wanna ask me a question, I can be very helpful when I know my time is not going to be wasted on a person who won't bother to take a few minutes to learn something... :-)
611313
Taking it simply, yes, this experiment would work.\n\nIt would need to travel much faster than the speed of light, or travel for a long time to get out beyond the light you are hoping to turn around and capture.  In that case, it would need to be a VERY powerfull telescope to pick out and see distinct images from the earths surface.  (even telescopes in orbit have a tough time making out small objects.)\n\nBut the experiment would work.  It takes time for light to travel.  We see the stars as they existed thousands of years ago.
327739
It takes 4 years for the light to reach Earth, so that means the star is 4 light-years away from Earth.\n\nA light year is 5,878,625,373,183 and 849/1397 miles, so multiply that by 4, and you get...\n\nabout 23,514,501,492,734.4309 miles.\n\n\nAnd if you're using the metric system, a light year is 9,460,730,472,580,800 meters, so multiply that by 4, and you get...\n\n37,842,921,890,323,200 meters.\n\nHope this helps.
589172
"Near close approach around 4h44m UT July 3, this 600-meter/yard diameter asteroid\n\n Passes only 268,873 miles from the Earth, only  1.1 times the distance to the moon away.\n\nPeaking at  visual magnitude 11.1 four hours later, users of telescopes of 6 inches (15cm)  \n\nor larger can enjoy observing a  rare celestial  treat.  At time of close approach, 2004 XP14\n\n races along at 8.323 degrees per hour, or a mean lunar diameter every four minutes!\n\nSuch a rapid speed results in direct motion becoming visible, second by second. Just \n\nas naked eye Earth satellites are seen crossing the sky, 2004 XP14 will both amaze and\n\nchallenge the observer, both visually and those taking images."\n\nFrom www.lpl.arizona.edu\n\nHope it helps.
605053
That's a good question.  If everything started from a singularity and we can see some objects from early in the universe, you'd think they'd all be in one area in space.  \n\nBut you've got to remember, where we are now was also in that same area near the original singularity.  Although our sun, or our galaxy, did not exist 13 billion years ago, this point in space did.  This point in space was surrounded by the early galaxies and quasars of the early universe and they were close to us - a lot closer than 13 billion light years.  The light of many of those early galaxies washed over this point in space long ago.  \n\nBut this point in space has been moving away from all the other points in space at a rapid rate.  We've been moving away from the surrounding points in space and the light from those points has to chase us down.  So if we've been moving away from some point in space that once contained a quasar at 9/10ths the speed of light, that light would take 10 times longer to reach us than if we were standing still.  So if that point was really 1.3 billion light years away from us 13 billion years ago, its light would just catch up with us.\n\nYou got to think 4 dimensional now... we've been moving away from points on all sides of us, thus light needs to chase us down from every direction.  So were surrounded by these ancient quasars.\n\nWell, at least the astrophysicists seem to make the math work...