0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The term "event horizon of the universe" is unknown to me - what does it mean? Did you mean to refer to the observable universe? Another problem is that I can't relate to finding myself "alone in the unimaginable empty nothingness" because once I've imagined it it can't be unimaginable anymore.
Whether you ended up back where you started would depend on where you steered.
Quote from: LeeE on 29/11/2008 20:26:50Whether you ended up back where you started would depend on where you steered.It also depends on the geometry of spacetime. If you keep going in a straight line in a closed universe, you would return to your point of origin. In an open universe, you would just continue on forever.
There is therefore no upper limit to the expansion speed of space and our universe could be many times larger than this. If processes like inflation occurred it is probably very many orders of magnitude larger than the farthest distance we could ever see.
Well, this is the famous 'Mach' hypothesis.Mach posited that without an external frame of reference then there is no motion (or no way to classify motion).Newton's bucket was an attempt to clarify this. If you take a bucket of water in this scenario and you spin it, then does the water obey the normal rules of rotational dynamics (ie does the water climb the sides at the edges of the bucket or not?).A similar example would be two weights connected by a string. If you set the weights spinning around each other then does the string become tight or does it not?Mach said no. Einstein said (originally) no, but later changed that answer when he considered General Relativity in more detail....
I see in several posts here that we seem to accept the idea that space is expanding everywhere without question. It seems to me that to accept that notion requires some exceptions that I can't visualize happening. For example, if all space is expanding the space inside atoms must be expanding, and if that is so every thing must increase in dimension right along with space.How can we measure the expansion; our measuring devices should have expanded also. I am sure someone has thought this out; I have never seen that thinking.
]Also quarks is said to be bound by an 'inverse' force holding them together.Getting stronger the more apart they get.
So, if there was an 'expansion' your photonic atoms would be unaffected too?
But if we had a cube that we heated to the same energy amount as what a comparable object 'starts with', when accelerating it, the 'gravitational' effect of that cube would be of a greater magnitude for the accelerating case as compared to a 'stationary' object heated.
by 'flat' you mean two-dimensional?
Or are you referring to 'Minkowski space'.That is what we have here?Three dimensions plus time
You're a 'God', or at least as near as we feeble humans might come:
Do you see a 'golden standard' of time then Vern?An arrow that is at rest with the whole universe and not frame dependent?
H. Ziegler: If one thinks about the basic particles of matter as invisible little spheres which possess an invariable speed of light, then all interactions of matter like states and electrodynamic phenomena can be described and thus we would have erected the bridge between the material and immaterial world that Mr. Planck wanted.
(Just as a 'by side'!We seems to have a 'karma' residing at our 'controls'?)
When did this karma business pop out of the blue?
Hmmm...it appears that my hour has worn off because I have just executed my karma prowess. But now I'll have to wait another hour (before I can rate your posts Vern)!