Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'
From: Greg Neill (gneillREM_at_OVE.THIS.netcom.ca)
Date: 12/31/04
- Next message: jahn: "Motion and simultaniety"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Next in thread: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Maybe reply: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Maybe reply: Tom Roberts: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Maybe reply: kenseto: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:47:51 -0500
"RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104466548.340949.62730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Modern cosmology has introduced the concept of
> 'expanding space'. Cf. the inflation theory of
> creation,
Careful, it's not a 'Creation' theory.
> and recently the dark energy 'negative
> gravity' hypothesis. In these scenarios, it is
> posited that the expansion can actually be faster than light.
>
> This bugs me,
What bugs you? Inflation, or the fact that expansion can
occur at speeds greater than light speed?
> because from an instrumental viewpoint,
> things move apart, right? All motion is relative.
> Then, what is the difference between 'A and B are
> separating by moving through space', and 'A and B
> are separating as space expands'?
On difference is that bodies in the universe can be not
only separating, but accelerating with repect to one another,
yet they will not experience any net force!
>
> (Some will object to the concept of moving through
> space, but I think it's clear in context)
>
> Let's put it another way. Suppose we observe
> Andromeda flying away at .8 c. Is it possible to
> say, "Andromeda is really moving at only .6 c;
> the extra .2 c comes from space expanding".
> Is that meaningful in any way? I don't get it.
Andromeda is next door. It's gravitationally bound in our
local group, so it won't participate in universal
expansion (relative to us).
>
> In particular, if space expands at greater than
> c, wouldn't this represent a catastrophe for relativity?
Not at all. General Relativity does not place a speed limit
on how fast space can expand.
- Next message: jahn: "Motion and simultaniety"
- Previous message: George Hammond: "Re: God=G_uv Comments of Isham Dembski Unwin"
- Next in thread: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Maybe reply: Morituri-|-Max: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Maybe reply: Tom Roberts: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Maybe reply: kenseto: "Re: 'moving through space' vs 'space expanding'"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|