--- On Sat, 9/24/11, Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jouni, I am not certain I follow quite what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting that, possibly, the absolute frame of reference may have differing velocities based on the velocity of the local object? I.E, some planet, Earth or Venus, whatever? I may be completely misreading what you're getting at. Makes me think of a few things, though. Back to the wormhole = time machine thing thrown about for years; if "space" is taken as an absolute frame of reference, what happens if you move a piece of space WRT uncurved, free space at some velocity? Is it still part of the absolute frame? I'm not sure how to explain what I'm thinking... assume you have a wormhole a la Morris and Thorne... one end is stationary, the other end you move around at some speed close to c, and try to make a time machine out of it. If the "space" making up the wormhole is considered to be an absolute frame, does that mean that the moved end does not experience time dilation? Meaning that there is an absolute entry and exit time for something traversing the wormhole? I started thinking about this some years back when reading over an old webpage called 'Falling into a Black Hole.' One of the things that struck me was the idea that the 'escape velocity' of a black hole could be considered to be the infall velocity of space into the hole. V(infall) = c at the event horizon, and exceeds c within. A natural question to ask is, then, if space defines an absolute frame of reference, is the frame of V(infall) = 0 (free, uncurved space) the same as that of some part of space close to or within the hole where V(infall) > 0? I wish there was some better way to explain what I am visualizing. It probably makes no sense. --Kyle
