Posted on 03/22/2010 8:02:28 PM PDT by Feline_AIDS
You know there is a book, seriously, not trying to dismiss your questions, called “Einstein for dummies”, that you can probably find at your local library. I already said I am somewhat at my limit of explaining the discoveries of perhaps the most gifted man in history. I wont waste any of my life trying to dispute something Einstein said. I think I would ultimately lose that battle.
E = mc^2 is about matter energy coversion. Its a ratio. Its separate from the physical limitation of the velocities of matter.
The claim you read from people who believe in GR is that it somehow or other propagates at C.
>E = mc^2 is about matter energy coversion. Its a ratio. Its separate from the physical limitation of the velocities of matter.
And why wouldn’t expansion of the universe, a rate, ALSO be [somewhat] separate from limitation of the velocities of matter?
{To be technical it would actually be dependent because the two velocities of the edges of the universe could ONLY be, at most, twice the speed of light... if you fire two identical guns opposite each other the bullets are, in effect, traveling 2x a single bullets speed away from the other. This is the principal behind super-colliders where both particles are accelerated to near-lightspeed (though opposite to each other); F = ma is STILL in effect so the [theoretical] goal is to get the a to be as close to -c as possible for both particles. IE the closer to c they can accelerate these particles before colliding them the more Force the collision has... and that force is what they’re trying to use to break the particles into smaller (and theoretical) particles}
Again, I really have no clue what you are saying. Gravity exists. I cant explain why, but its measureable and it does not suffer the loss of the time it takes for light to travel between attracting bodies. Just like electrons move at speed of light through magnetic fields, objects move through gravity fields at their respective speeds. The gravity fields do not propogate, though they can change as mass moves around.
I’ve kind of wondered if we got our assumptions wrong. For example, what if the visible universe has some sort of non-zero total angular momentum and the whole dark energy, dark flow thing is basically the effect being inside a non-inertial rest frame. It would be sort of like a moving turntable with some coins on it. If an observer is at rest with respect to one of the coins, it looks like the other coins are flying away from him at an accelerating rate towards some distant horizon.
because the expansion of the universe is the expansion of mass? ...your question makes no sense to me...the expansion we see is a fraction of the speed of light so in any case the question is hypothetical...
and you need to be mindful that applying Newtonian law (F=ma) in non-Newtonian space will be erronious. There are assumptions to Newtonian physics that do not apply over the general relativity space.
I cant tell you more and your questions show that you really should review some of the fundamentals of physics to pursue this further. I do recommend the book I suggested earlier. It was one of the easier reads on Einstein I have seen.
Good evening.
“One is that gravity has been known for centuries to propagate instantaneously to within our ability to measure while Einstein claimed that information cannot be transmitted faster than C. “
Nope.. Gravity has been shown to be transmitted at exactly C.
I am glad to see you found this. Hope it answers your question better than I could.
Galactic clusters are held together by gravity and until quite recently cosmologists were unsure whether or not gravity might actually halt the expansion of the universe and lead to a Big Crunch. Gravity plays a huge role in shaping the universe.
Not really. Websites which provide real info on this topic include:
http://www.thunderbolts.info http://www.electric-cosmos.org http://www.plasmacosmology.net http://www.rense.com/general72/eelec.htm http://www.holoscience.com
and a number of others, but that should do for starters.
Like I said, gravity cannot control anything on that sort of scale.
You posted a thread in which editor-surveyor argues with Ted Holden.
Most excellent.
Gravity cannot hold two dust motes together from four miles distance. That's why the idiots talk about "dark matter" and they claim it's 95% of the universe. They assume and hope most of the audience is too stupid to notice the problem i.e. the fact that you just went from hoping gravity could hold two dust motes together from four miles off to hoping it could hold them together from one fifth of a mile apart.
It can't do that either. A fifth of a mile is two of those distance markers on a highway.
Of course intergalactic distances dwarf any sort of distances like that between our sun and AC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.