"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
"The universe is everything" to a closed minded person like you.
Space that the universe is expanding into exist before our universe
expands into it.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/011021a.html :
"Perhaps the simplest way to look at these questions is the following: if
the universe includes, by definition, everything -- all of space, time,
matter, energy -- than there can be nothing outside of it (and hence no
edge), nothing for it to expand into. Its true that this is contrary to our
everyday experience, as is much else in physics and astronomy; but of course
our everyday experience does not extend to the entire universe. In some ways
this line of argument parallels those in refutations of the "argument by
design" for the existence of God."
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/co...y_faq.html#XIN :
What is the Universe expanding into?
This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe
is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the
Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably
fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the
Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the
Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that
we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger
space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge
or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into
anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about.
Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object
that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy
is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think
about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D
space that the Universe is expanding into.
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_quest...88F2D7&catID=3
:
"There is no 'empty space' that the universe is expanding into."
Wrong. They are in motion... not you. They do not see you moving, they
see the effects of the engine pulling the train
Here's a quote from Einsteins paper on Special Relativity:
.... the introduction of a light-ether will prove to be superfluous since,
according to the view to be developed here, neither will a space in absolute
rest endowed with special properties be introduced nor will a velocity
vector be associated with a point of empty space in which electromagnetic
processes take place.
..
What is the absolute
reference
frame for all motion in the universe?
The center or origin.
------------Check the implications of the "Cosmological Constant".
Quick Navigation Quick Nav Menu Home Search Status News Technical Site
Map Links Glossary Image Gallery About MAP
What is a Cosmological Constant?
Einstein first proposed the cosmological constant as a mathematical fix
to the theory of general relativity. In its simplest form, general
relativity predicted that the universe must either expand or contract.
Einstein thought the universe was static, so he added this new term to
stop the expansion.
What you and other fail to understand is that this was an unstable fix,
like balancing a pencil on its point. Now we have an expanding universe
model, now called the Big Bang theory. When Hubble's study of nearby
galaxies showed that the universe was in fact expanding, Einstein
regretted modifying his elegant theory and viewed the cosmological
constant term as his "greatest mistake".
What is the physical significance of the CC?
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The law of inertia describes perpetual motion. In fact, the motion
is
perpetual if no energy is added or removed from the system.
See above...the key is nothing added or removed. It requires energy
to
put anything in motion therefore it is not perpetual.
Motion is relative. The energy could be applied to the observer, not
the
observed to change the apparent motion
..
apparent motion is not motion.
Where does the energy come from to induce additional rotation in the
Lens-Thirring effect?
The rotation field, whether caused by a linearly moving mass or a
rotating object, only affects moving masses.
What kind of field is produced by this rotation? Since the field is
rotating
are all masses not rotating with it considered moving
?
Gravity, & yes
---------------Most claim gravity is a quadripole field and rotating
masses
do not produce additional gravitational fields. Could the field be a
time
distortion instead?
No.
Recent satellite experiments have shown frame dragging in
low earth orbit. The time distortion is dependent of the velocity of the
satellite relative to the earth's surface.
http://einstein.stanford.edu/content...de/Page28.html
says:
One of the predictions of Einstein's general theory of relativity is that
local spacetime is twisted by the rotation of the Earth. Hans Thirring and
Joseph Lense called this "frame-dragging"- any rotating mass will drag the
local spacetime frame of reference Honey Ball Drawing with it. The predicted
drag is very small and fades as one travels farther from the rotating mass,
but the twist nearby can affect the paths of light, energy, and other
masses.