We live in a bubble. Seriously.

[tarheel91]

Sqrl said:

tarheel91 said:

I get that space is distorted by space time, and that a less dense area would alter it.  However, shouldn't it be altering it in constant way throughout all eternity?  Maybe everything's in a different spot, but I don't see how position can constantly change as a result of a constant amount of less density.  Glass can bend (sort of) light, but it doesn't make it looks like things are moving, it just makes the object emitting or reflecting the light look like it's somewhere it's not.

@Vlad: I took AP Physics B last year.  I aced the class and got a 5 on the AP.  Is the calculus portion of Physics C that much worse?  I'm 1/5 through the year and all it is is a repeat of Physics B so far.  I recognize that the stuff we're talking about is well beyond Physics C, but I just included it to show I did have some form of a physics foundation.

 

Not to nitpick but space-time is warped by mass(you could say distorted but warped is a bit more accurate). 

In regards to your question I'm not entirely sure I know what you're asking but to I wanted clarify a few points:

The amount of mass in an area determines how warped the space-time of that area is.  Since the mass can move the warping effect doesn't have to stay static for a given location in space-time.

On the issue of the way the light is affected it is literally moving along the curvature of space-time, this isn't a refraction, but rather the space the light moves "through" is curved and thus the path the light takes is curved.  Technically it is only curved to those thinking of it in an euclidean sense (which all of you are), but in other geometric terms such as hyperbolic or elliptical geometry an observer might consider it to simply be a straight line.  But the underlying point is that the light takes a geodesic path through space and is not refracted by medium, it is simply going straight ahead.  Something of note is that the difference between euclidian and hyperbolic geometry, for example, on small scales is negligible, and indeed there is dissent as to whether we live in a euclidean or hyperbolic world, luckily in our day to day lives these two geometric worldviews have identical practical implications and only on larger scales does it truly matter.  It makes a great deal of sense though when you realize the difference between these two actually boils down to the very mundane parallel postulate.

In any cases I'm way off my point, so I'll leave it here and hope this info helps at least a little.

I meant to write light is distorted by space time. -_-;

Wouldn't that still mean that the amount of mass could only change in one direction.  It looks like everything is moving away, right?  That would mean the change would have to be constantly positive or negative if I'm understanding that right.

 

@Rath: I was under the impression nothing was moving away from us, the void just makes it look like it is.  Are we going from static to moving or moving to moving faster?  If it's the latter, that makes perfect sense.