Andrew Paul wrote: > > > I would have thought that was the case anyway. Surely the universe > > > does have zero momentum? Doesn't it? > > > Warren Ockrassa wrote: > > Relative to what? > > Andrew Paul wrote: > Yes, exactly... > > I guess I was taking the view that kinda by definition, it would have to > have zero momentum overall. But I suppose that depends if you think the > universe is a zero-sum game or not. Infinite and zero-sum, yea, that > sounds like a good sort of universe.
I guess questions about things like momentum, size, and stuff like that don't really have any meaning when we're talking about the whole universe - since by definition, the universe includes everything. There isn't anything for the universe to move through that would let it have momentum in the first place. We can tell that the universe is growing compared to its size in the past (or rather, we can look at local conditions, measure the rate of change, and extrapolate from there), and measure the rate of expansion, but that doesn't mean that the universe is growing into empty space. The expansion can only be measured from inside. That's why the *apparent* rate of growth of the universe's farther regions (far past what we can see) can be many times the speed of light. Kevin Street -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 8/15/2005 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
