From: Leonardo Wild (dlwild@access.net.ec)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 07:04:21 MDT
Jonathan Standley wrote:
>
>
> I'm not 100% sure on this myself, but I think it has do to with the fact
> that the universe was expanding, which is different from objects moving. If
> you were "moving" away from another object because of universal expansion,
> you would not have any gain in kinetic energy as a result of the expansion.
> You wouldn't be in motion at all.
> Again, I could be wrong, but I think this is a good analogy: imagine you are
> on a flat sheet of infinitely flexible material. Well, not on the sheet,
> but embedded within the sheet, with no way of escaping. You are at one end
> of the sheet, and want to travel to the other end. If the sheet is deformed
> through the 3rd dimension, stretching it out, the distance between them
> increases with no velocity change in the objects relative or absolute
> velocity.
Still an explanation based on Newtonian physics. A similar experiment
was carried out by Michelson and Morley and it didn't work. G.F.
FitzGerald saved the day with his theory of the change of longitude of
objects as the moved near light speed. But it all applies to the Laws of
Nature as set now. This experiment of moving with the matter in motion
-so your relative motion is zero- does not apply to Einstein's Special
Theory of Relativity "today" since the c is absolute. Well, until those
experiments a couple of years ago where the speed of light was surpassed
by 300 times, but not by matter, rather by photons.
Another way to explain this all is that the universe was made up of
subatomic matter moving at the speed of thought ... It wouldn't defy the
models of today, and it would make as much sense. :-)
Leonardo Wild
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT