In critiques of Mach's Principle there is often
referral to particles at infinity, that see
rotation of the mass at "the center".

But there are no particles at infinity.
There is no inertia to carry any particle there,
and it can not use any reactive engine, since this
also requires inertia.

There is no escape velocity from a point mass in
an otherwise empty universe.

And there are other problems, no inertia means no
space, or better inflated objects. There is simply
no space in an empty universe, a single hydrogen
atom would fill it completely. Particles launched
to empty space at infinity, would face the same
problem. It can't get crowded there, there simply
is not enough space for it, and no inertia to keep
things there.

Hayek.

Hayek wrote in message
l.nl...

In critiques of Mach's Principle there is often
referral to particles at infinity, that see
rotation of the mass at "the center".

But there are no particles at infinity.
There is no inertia to carry any particle there,
and it can not use any reactive engine, since this
also requires inertia.

There is no escape velocity from a point mass in
an otherwise empty universe.

And there are other problems, no inertia means no
space, or better inflated objects. There is simply
no space in an empty universe, a single hydrogen
atom would fill it completely. Particles launched
to empty space at infinity, would face the same
problem. It can't get crowded there, there simply
is not enough space for it, and no inertia to keep
things there.

Hayek.

Since the Universe has a finite age, mass / energy beyond the present
horizon distance cannot be a causal agent for events now occurring
within the observable Universe. Why is silly Hayek assuming that
the Universe originated from a single point? [Old Man]

Hayek wrote:

In critiques of Mach's Principle there is often
referral to particles at infinity, that see
rotation of the mass at "the center".

But there are no particles at infinity.
There is no inertia to carry any particle there,
and it can not use any reactive engine, since this
also requires inertia.
[snip gibberish]

The stuff was already there when the universe kicked off. We moved
out. Hey stooopid - the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it
was an explosion of space.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Old Man wrote:
Hayek wrote in message
l.nl...

In critiques of Mach's Principle there is often
referral to particles at infinity, that see
rotation of the mass at "the center".

But there are no particles at infinity.
There is no inertia to carry any particle there,
and it can not use any reactive engine, since this
also requires inertia.

There is no escape velocity from a point mass in
an otherwise empty universe.

And there are other problems, no inertia means no
space, or better inflated objects. There is simply
no space in an empty universe, a single hydrogen
atom would fill it completely. Particles launched
to empty space at infinity, would face the same
problem. It can't get crowded there, there simply
is not enough space for it, and no inertia to keep
things there.

Hayek.


Since the Universe has a finite age, mass / energy beyond the present
horizon distance cannot be a causal agent for events now occurring
within the observable Universe. Why is silly Hayek assuming that
the Universe originated from a single point? [Old Man]

I am not assuming that, I am responding to an
argument made here against MP.

But actually my views are much worse than your
worst nightmare, it does not only originate in a
point, it completely fits in it. What is empty
space anyway, but a second hand notion ? (What's
space got to do with it, by Tina Turner)

The universe does not expand, the objects shrink.
Space can't shrink nor expand, since it has no
substance. It is called gravitational length
contraction, but I prefer to call it an inertial
effect.

Hayek.

Uncle Al wrote:

Hayek wrote:

In critiques of Mach's Principle there is often
referral to particles at infinity, that see
rotation of the mass at "the center".

But there are no particles at infinity.
There is no inertia to carry any particle there,
and it can not use any reactive engine, since this
also requires inertia.

[snip gibberish]

The stuff was already there when the universe kicked off. We moved
out. Hey stooopid - the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it
was an explosion of space.

You can't expand what does not exist, hypermoron,
you can only shrink what is real.

Oh yes, you are the one that likes to believe in
illusions, like time.

Space expands, time flows, Uncle all thinks.
Three illusions.

Hayek.

Hayek wrote:

The universe does not expand, the objects shrink.
Space can't shrink nor expand, since it has no
substance.

Hayek.

Why do you believe that space has no substance? From what premises did
you arrive at that conclusion. Do you even know what premises are, and
how to apply them to form valid arguments? Do you know how to reason? Or
do you prefer guessing blindly at the truth? If so you have exactly an
infinite number of tries ahead of you before you accidentally get it
right.

Richard Perry

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper

Richard wrote:

Hayek wrote:


The universe does not expand, the objects shrink.
Space can't shrink nor expand, since it has no
substance.

Hayek.


Why do you believe that space has no substance?

Can you show me one ?


From what premises did
you arrive at that conclusion.

There is a substance, if you can call it that way,
it is called inertia. It is inertia that gives
space some properties. You probably will not like
these properties, Because one of them makes
objects shrink.

Do you even know what premises are, and
how to apply them to form valid arguments? Do you know how to reason? Or
do you prefer guessing blindly at the truth? If so you have exactly an
infinite number of tries ahead of you before you accidentally get it
right.

Tell your empty space to reveal some physical
properties, and we will continue the discussion.
One can study the physical properties of inertia
though, so that is what I am talking about right now.

Hayek.

Hayek wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:

Hayek wrote:

In critiques of Mach's Principle there is often
referral to particles at infinity, that see
rotation of the mass at "the center".

But there are no particles at infinity.
There is no inertia to carry any particle there,
and it can not use any reactive engine, since this
also requires inertia.

[snip gibberish]

The stuff was already there when the universe kicked off. We moved
out. Hey stooopid - the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, it
was an explosion of space.

You can't expand what does not exist, hypermoron,
you can only shrink what is real.
[snitp]

What is present now that did not have a direct precursor at the
instant of the Big Bang? You are ignorant, you are ineducable, and you
are stupid. You are incapable of trimming your psychoses to be
consistent with empirical observation. You are a credit to your kind.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Hayek wrote in message ll.nl...

The universe does not expand, the objects shrink.
Space can't shrink nor expand, since it has no
substance. It is called gravitational length
contraction, but I prefer to call it an inertial
effect.

Hayek.

This is a mathematically valid way of looking at the universe,
provided you allow for a field throughout space that makes
the objects stretch and shrink. However, it has drawbacks;
an infinite number of differing stretching + shrinking fields
would produce the same observed results. For example, if time
slowed down everywhere, who would notice? Another way of
looking at it, which I prefer, is that empty space does have a
property: intrinsic curvature. Either way, "empty" space isn't
really empty; there's something throughout space that affects
the motion of objects.

On a sunny day (Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:37:37 +0200) it happened Hayek
wrote in
:

You can't expand what does not exist, hypermoron,
hey new word learned today :-)