Relative Motion (A Thought Experiment)

This is not a problem with the BB. It is a problem with your understanding of it. In the BB it is exactly space itself that is expanding. It is, as you say, not expanding in our spacetime. There is no antiphoton or, rather, it is it's own antiparticle. If they do anihilate there is nothing left.I don't know what the rest is about. Nor am I likely to know the answer if it was clearer.Again, I offer some advice: going on about these kinds of things when we know pretty much zip about them is a waste of time. You may ask a few questions and hope someone who can talk sensibly about them comes by. Just making up stuff using some of the words you've picked up here and there is just gibberish.

They are orbiting relative to the center of mass. I think that you could detect the motion because there would be "extra" coreolis forces. The center of the orbits isn't the center of the earth. It is under the earth's surface though. The earth then is being "flung around" a point under it's surface. I'm pretty sure that would be detectable.

Have a look at this site:
Page Not Found | Science Mission Directorate
Go half a page down and watch the "full-length movie".This shows a spinning merry-go-round. On it there is no relative motion between the participants. But the ball they throw behaves very different than if the platform is stationary. I think, maybe, the same effect would be detectable in the case of the lone earth-moon system.However, there is also the idea of Mach's principle. You might want to google that.

I disagree. The dual nature of light (and all matter) is demonstrated experimentally by the two slit experiment.

It isn't a wave; it isn't a particle. These are analogies that we use to describe what we observe. It has characteristics which the mathematics of waves can be used to describe. It has other characteristics that are particle like. It has characteristics which are neither.

I think the whole first half of your post (to the second quote of me) is a restatement of Mach's Principle.I have not idea if it is true or not. I think the problem is, as you've stated, it testability.If MP is true then the merry go round would not see correolis forces alone in the universe, I think. But it would see them if MP isn't true.Got a spare Merry-go-round? Got a spare empty universe?

You know we need Eta on this one. It's beyound the amateur guessing I'm doing.

What shape is the other planet?

No one said we didn't have Newton here. Do apples fall? Do we have GR?But you are right in that it would be much, much harder for Newton to figure out his rules and to generalize. Much!(added by edit)I think we could (Mach aside) detect the acceleration of the Earth due to the moon.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-31-2004 01:54 AM

I don't actually know anything at all. Once upon a time before more than half of this forum was born I got a bachelor's in physics. Nothing I say here is a reflection on the department that granted that degree; I have forgotten everything!I spent my working life in software developement and DB administration and as a consultant and with IBM.The only thing I have going for me is that I like to read and learn. As for any apparent expertise that is a fake based on reading what others have written. And, I like to think, the ability to think moderately coherently and logically.

LOL, I was born within a month of Eniac. The first machine I programmed was an IBM 7044 which was the scientific machine superceded by the more general purpose 360 series.I was a bit late in the "PC" revolution. Friends owned various microprocessors in the '70's (a fortune slipped by again). I didn't touch one very seriously till using a Mac in 1985. It wasn't until 1993 that I started with a small software firm and ended up as a software development manager after the people who worked for me taught me C and C++ while I was their so-called "senior" engineer.It is nice to have experience respected. Just remember to question. One challenge for me working with more junior teams was to remind them that I can be wrong too, horribly wrong. It seems I can exude (I think it was the consulting -- at $200 an hour you have to be able to sound like you know what you are talking about) confidence and sound right even when I'm blowing pretty colored smoke out of one orifice or another. When time is short you can trust a track record to possible give a better quick decision but when there is time thinking is a good idea.

I was the only one in my high school who used a sliderule (google that ). I remember the shock that I felt when my kid brother was in grade 11 (he's 18 years younger than I) and looked at me kinda shocked with: "You mean they didn't have calculators when you were in high school?" I grew 10 more grey hairs right then. Flattery will get you anything; but the answer to your relative motion question. I'll ask the next time I run into a physicist acquaintance. He works here at UBC and at CERN on one of the big detectors (I have to find out which one).I've written in a bunch of languages C is pretty simple. C++ is fun but has a pathilogically designed syntax. They made a mistake trying to make it be just what it is named "C and one more". You should know, before you overestimate how smart I am, that I went for months using C++ before, one day, walking down the hall, the reason for the name dawned on me. Everyone else looked at me with disgust when I unvailed my revalation. There were a number of occasions where the engineers working for me offered up "Well, that's why you are a manager.". This was one of them.BTW, I've tried to visualize 4 space a number of times. It doesn't work for me. But then I'm not much of a mathematician.