Tom they say space is stretching inbetween
the galaxies. But this is not the same thing as
galaxies moving outward *through* space.

I believe there is a distinction to be made
in cosmology.

Nick wrote:
Does a rocket traveling straight up follow a curve?


no not at all did saied something lik ethat
i saies no 'natural curved moevent except .....

..... the Circlon (:-)
----------

Einstein was right about curvilinear motion caused
by his curved space

how ia it shown in expantion of galaxies???!!!
----------

but he didn't go far enough.
Its the same with falling objects. They don't
necessarily follow a curve. Instead they accelerate.

good for you ... soo?......

You want to ask questions porat?
yes i do

Then answer why gravity moves things all the same.

i guess becauase 'gravitins' (or Circlons) are
evenly spread..
ie
the same number of them per unit aria
anyway thank you for the question
i told you i try to be honest so
i nevr before thouht about it!.....
but you see even with a quick thinking- there is some answer...

it is the involved matter and pareticles that do it
spcase has nothing to 'offer' on that bussiness.

What if the outward acceleration of galaxies is anti gravity?

i dont think so @@
much simpler tto think sbout it as what happense in an explaotion-- ie
after explotion there is outwards spread
now you ask why it is becoming bigger?
yes indeed
if the distance between mases becomes bigger
gravity becomes less!!! thats all!
isnt that so ??
ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------

right !!
if it just moves outwards in stright lines
it is refuting curved space time!!

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------

Only if there is a center Porat.
This also means there is a place where space disappears.
A universe with The center of its sphere boundary.

The beauty of Einstein was his gravity is a cosmology where
there is no boundary of space - then no space.
The whole universe has a postive curvature a seemless whole.

You say space don't curve?
You think there is something wrong with that?
I say there is something wrong with a place that space ends.

How do you like that?

Nick wrote:
Only if there is a center Porat.
This also means there is a place where space disappears.
A universe with The center of its sphere boundary.

in fact
the more 'big ' we think about dimensions of space

the less we can know (at least now)

you say speric bundlies ?? why ?
may be because th e galaxies move outwards forn that
big bang point outwards in some velocity
but please note !!
even that is .... mass and pertiles dependant!!
it is they who define your space!! right ?
and it sates nothing aginst the exostance
of other endless space that is beyond that.
we cant know ...
and actually i doubbt if it is realy relavant to us ??
we ahve enough problems to solve in our 'little space'..
---------

The beauty of Einstein was his gravity is a cosmology where
there is no boundary of space - then no space.

??
did i saied somethng different??
-------
The whole universe has a postive curvature a seemless whole.

i just wonder what is 'positive curvature'
or waht is it megative curvature
is it not simpler to think -
no curvature at all??
but certain particles that move in a curved line !! (-?
-----

You say space don't curve?
You think there is something wrong with that?
yess
i think space nearly by definition should not have
any properties except hosting matter.
the properties are in the particles
they are much more 'equipped' and much more sophisticated
than the 'dumm space'.... is it not a better logic?
not to mention that if realy
galaxies are moving out in stright lines
imho it is a deadly problem for curved spacetime..
----------
--------
I say there is something wrong with a place that space ends.
we cant know so far away.....
raly an embarasing question
but still i think - not very relevant to us
'microbic creatues' !!...........

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------

How do you like that?

"Cos_mo" wrote in message oups.com...


sue jahn wrote:
"Cos_mo" wrote in message ups.com...


wrote:
Cos_mo wrote:
Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

If everyone agrees. Then what are the main arguments of
Anti-Relativists such as EL, Traveller, etc.

Curvature, expansion, contraction of spacetime (not space, but
spacetime) have nothing per se to do with Relativity. They're also the
case for Newtonian Physics, as well; its theory of gravity, too, can be
rendered geometrically as a theory of curved spacetime.


Really?? Pls. share some reference about it. The following stuff
by Brian Greene is his book The Fabric of the Cosmos is what
caused me some "confusion" where to draw the line between
abstract warping of 4D geometry by gravity in GR and actual
literal space being expanding in cosmology. What do you think
of the following (others pls. comment as well). Did Greene
goof up:

No Greene didn't goof up unless you think you have sold more
books than he has.

If you have ever converted between polar and rectangular
coordinates, then you understand the form of an object
does not change, only the way you describe it.

Here is how Euclidean space is converted to spacetime..
Ahh... presumably there is a way to reverse the process.
Since few people ever do, few people know how. ;-)

"Space-time"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node13.html

Sue...

Ok. I thought Mark said relativity and space expansion is not
compatible or related.

Can the following be a rough guide.

3D space can expand and contract literally (as when universe is
once as small as an electron)

4D spacetime can curve causing gravity..

4D spaceteime curves to represent gravity.
Blue lines on a page don't cause anything, even if they are moving.
Don't try to buy that at your stationer but read Fitzpatrick's description
of the composition of each axis and see that they are.

So we only use 4D spacetime and the Minkoswsi geometry when
referring to gravity and its only curving.

No You use it to overcome a deficiency of Maxwell's equations.
They don't radiate in the Coulomb gauge because of the use of
artificial retarded potential assumed for an aether.


In literal space expansion, time is not involved. Minkowsi must
be transformed to Euclidian when gravity is not being talked about.

Also if time is involved, relativity comes in turning it into
Minkowski.

Close...Four space is used when Maxwell and SR is involved.
With Weber or Coulomb gauge 3+1 is used.

Duh... from the above, what do time and gravity have in common??

Generaly the relationship is the same as with light but the radiation
is isotropic.


Can gravity be condensed time? Lol....
If you write field equations to describe it that way I do not
see why not. We'll keep an eye on Axriv for your preprint :-)

I'm still learning vector calculus and tensors that's why I can't
start reading proper relativity books.. because I'm not as good in
math as geniuses such as Sue or Y.Porat. That's why I need to start
with concepts.

Sue can't do math. She just knows how to sort out the papers
written by theorists who do.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jre...j110-3nes2.pdf
http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/wpapers.htm

Sue...




Cos_mo

Don Giovanni, aka stronzo the sock puppet,


Bilge wrote:
Cos_mo:

Do all agree that space can really curve, expand, contract,
etc.??

Anyone got any problem with that concept??

A better way of stating is to ask why spacetime should be
flat or in any way be pre-determined to be a certain way,
since flat is just a particular case of curved.

right, the earth surface is flat

If you really believe the earth is flat, you should join the flat
earth society so you'll be in contact with people who won't laugh
at you, at least for that.

it is only ouer imperfect humans eyes which tricks us

You seem to make a habit out of assuming that others are burdened
with your deficiencies.

from the international play station ouer earth appears
spherical, which is not only a illusion becus the space
curving the informations to ouer imperfected eyes

Next time you pick your own mushrooms for dinner, don't use
any that turn a purplish color where the skin has been broken.
If you stop eating those, you might be able to post something
more coherent.

how would appear the earth seen from the international
play station to a fish for instance, what about a whale or
an octopus

You must have made mushroom soup with those mushrooms and had
several bowls before that post.

anywaus, if you have something to say, write your code,
then if you have nothing to say, write an essay

How about if I just disregard your idiotic suggestions and respond
appropriately by pointing out that you're an idiot. If you can't find one
newsgroup out of forty-thousand plus newsgroups in which you could post
something more intelligent than the crap you post here, you should find a
cliff and jump off.

you dont have to know maths
in order of understanding (or not understanding(:-) what space and time
are !!

that is physics !! mathes is only a servent of physics
sometimes an too arogant servent!!

no maths will tell you if space is curved or not
only experiemtal data to gether with some basi c logic
much more basic than maths
fo r instance :

if galaxies are runing outwards in stright lines- (it has to be tested
and verified experimentally)!!----- than
space is not curved!

thats the kind of thinking you have to do before taking your
pencil and paper and starting scrambling !!

and wasting an unbeleiveble amount of energy ,uman resourses
of floppy theories (even if sighned by a great man called Einstein ....
he imho was geat in other innovations - not with his curved spacetime.)

ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------

and addition to the above , i can suggest even i think a simple test to

the question:
are Galxies run outwards in stright lines or not:

if all the distances between galaxies are kept *constant with the same
proprtions*
that they move in stright lines.

now what is *constant with the same proportions*?

foe example:
if all distances between all known galxies are found in some time
to increase say by one percent *for all th e distances*
it means they kep moving outwards in stright lines

the increace of that 'one percent in distance is only because
they are at the second time measurment - on a bigger ('inflating' )
imaginary sphere!

hope i made myself clear

TIA
Y.Porat
-------------------------

and still in addition:
may be a better simpler test for knowing if galaxies run outwards in
stright lines

is simply to measure the *3d angles between each of them !!!

TIA
Y.Porat
--------------------------