"Joe" wrote in message ups.com...
You mean Ayn Rand of an Atlas Shrugged?

Joe

That's correct. She's the author of your diatribe.

CN

"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.

So what instruments would you use to measure this?



"Joe" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thats easy Hank,

Curvature can be measured entirely within a surface, and similarly
within a higher-dimensional manifold such as space or spacetime. On
earth, if you start at the North Pole, sail south for about 10,000 km
(to the Equator), turn left by 90 degrees, Sail for 10,000 more km, and
then do the same again (sail for 10,000 more km, turn left by 90
degrees, sail for 10,000 more km), you will be back where you started.
Such a triangle with three right angles is only possible because the
surface of the earth is curved. The curvature of spacetime can be
evaluated, and indeed given meaning, in a similar way. Spaces of only
two dimensions, however, require only one quantity, the Gaussian or
scalar curvature, to quantify their curvature. In more dimensions,
curvature is quantified by the Riemann tensor. This tensor describes
how a vector that is moved along a curve parallel to itself changes
when a round trip is made. In flat space the vector returns to the same
orientation, but in a curved space it generally does not.

Joe

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


Einstein was wrong. The introduction of a light ether is not
superfluous. He just failed to consider the real physical property's of
massless energy.

We know the universe is expanding. Therefore there is space for it to
expand into, a space packed full of Juju. While I was working on a
theory of the magnetism of dielectrics I came across some surprising
results.. like their ability to make RedClouds magnetic compasses spin
at high speeds.

Einstein's unified and general theories had literally banned any
systematic analysis of physical nature in exchange for a theory of
topology, not even geometry or metrics.

Joe

Me to, and they gave you quite a sugar buzz. However that is not where
I came up with the name for the cosmic energy source I discovered. Yet
it did come from a movie.

A Tarzan movie, the natives were scared ****less of Juju, a mystical
power the tribe feared and respected.

Joe

Light and mirrors

Joe

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be
none the wiser.


That's why experiments must be reproducable.


Wally wrote:
Still doesn't address the underlying problem that the notion of causality is
no more than an inference wrought of the empire of our experience.


That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

A random dataset could appear to be ordered to us, and we would be
none the wiser.


That's why experiments must be reproducable.


Wally wrote:
Still doesn't address the underlying problem that the notion of causality is
no more than an inference wrought of the empire of our experience.


That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:

That's true enough. But here's where the difference between "science"
and philosophy creeps in... when it's science, it happens every time.

For example, the phenomenon of water flowing downhill is essentially a
random event, the illusion caused by trillions of odd-shaped molecules
bouncing around any way they want. But somehow, water *always* flows
downhill.

The correct statement is: In every instance that we have observed, water has
flowed downhill.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com/FiatPandaRally/index.htm
www.wally.myby.co.uk

I've seen water come off a fall and be blown up into the air. I'm quite
sure some evaporated and rose to the clouds. Hmmmmmmmm

Joe