Re: Dark matter, dark energy, and will the acceleration reverse?

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/25/04 

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 09:32:57 GMT

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:RVHMc.7747$BX.5775@lakeread08...
> Dear Australopithecus Afarensis:
>
> "Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossil.lucy@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:BgHMc.9188$_K2.8671@lakeread02...
> >
> > > 1) If extremely large quantities of energy correspond to small
> quantities
> > of
> > > matter, than perhaps extremely large quantities of space correspond to
> > small
> > > quantities of energy? If light has relativistic mass than maybe so
does
> > space?
> > > I'm trying to understand how the edges of a spiral galaxy could rotate
> as
> > > quickly or faster than the center. If there's some kind of dark matter
> > causing
> > > this, how would it be distributed? Maybe rather than invisible globs
of
> > > something we don't understand it could be a property of space itself?
> > >
> > > 2) The expansion of the universe is accelerating. If I understand the
> > current
> > > explanation, you've got inertia from the bigbang, then a slowing of
the
> > > acceleration due to gravitational forces. Then, because matter spreads
> > out, the
> > > gravitational forces weaken and it starts to accelerate again.
> > > I found one website that theorized galaxies could eventually travel
> near
> > light
> > > speed http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/universe_end_011212.html
> > > From my rudimentary understanding of relativity, the faster an object
> > goes, the
> > > greater its mass. The closer to c, the mass increases exponentially to
> > > infinity. The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational effect.
> > Would
> > > that affect the acceleration or would the galaxies be too far away
from
> > each
> > > other by then?
> >
> > Yes, there goes the first law of thermodynamics. Or shall we modify
this
> > law to cover all except cosmology.
>
> He was mistaken. Gravitational mass =/= relativistic mass. First law
> intact from misunderstanding.

Indeed relativistic mass is a defined concept that many who post here would
rather see thrown out.

Thanks
Bill