|
Author
|
Topic: The expanding Universe and Galactic collisions
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
Message 1 of 76 (429922)
10-22-2007 2:24 PM
|
|
|
I have mediocre knoweldge about astronomy and physics, but for some reason the Big Bang theory doesn't quite sit well with me. If according to the BB theory the universe is in fact expanding and bodies of matter are moving away from each other, how do you explain galactic collisions? Of course one answer could be that the relative mass and proximity of two galactic bodies attract one another to the point of collision. This would also mean that the expansion of the universe is slowing/cooling down. Another question is: could the universe have originated from a gigantic Black hole, and if so could that be where this universe is heading to? Edited by Spektical, : No reason given.
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 4 of 76 (429932)
10-22-2007 3:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
10-22-2007 3:15 PM
|
|
Thank you for the completely useless and non-thought provoking response taz. I'm not worried...go play tornado somewhere else.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by Taz, posted 10-22-2007 3:15 PM | | Taz has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 5 by jar, posted 10-22-2007 4:09 PM | | Spektical has not replied | | | Message 7 by Percy, posted 10-22-2007 4:49 PM | | Spektical has not replied | | | Message 9 by Taz, posted 10-22-2007 6:16 PM | | Spektical has replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 10 of 76 (429980)
10-22-2007 10:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by Kitsune
10-22-2007 4:34 PM
|
|
I was being cautious about my extent of knowledge about astronomy...just spoke out loud. His comments were useless because the didn't answer the questions as much as they tried to dismantle the question itself which is besides the point. Anyways, my apologies to Taz for sounding harsh or rude. Edited by Spektical, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by Kitsune, posted 10-22-2007 4:34 PM | | Kitsune has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 12 by Taz, posted 10-22-2007 10:35 PM | | Spektical has not replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 11 of 76 (429983)
10-22-2007 10:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
10-22-2007 6:16 PM
|
|
No you explained it pretty eloquently. I know this information as well, and I guess the mystery is the fact that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, which goes against our current linear perspective of how the universe works. This is why the big bang theory doesn't fit. I think there is a much more complex mechanism by which the universe evolved or became the way it is now. I read an article not too long ago on Universe Today or space.com...unfortunately I forgot the title of the article...but basically it hypothesizes a different theory from the BB and one that I think has to do with other universes and strings etc. I have to go back and rummage for it. Edited by Spektical, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by Taz, posted 10-22-2007 6:16 PM | | Taz has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by Taz, posted 10-22-2007 10:39 PM | | Spektical has replied | | | Message 74 by cavediver, posted 10-27-2007 6:28 AM | | Spektical has not replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 14 of 76 (430002)
10-22-2007 11:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 13 by Taz
10-22-2007 10:39 PM
|
|
well first of all the universe is only 14.7 billion years old while Sol is 4.7 billion years old. How is this possible when the rate of the universe's expansion is increasing? what I mean is how did all the different galaxies form so quickly and with such complexity? And where is the centre of the BB or the point in space from which it originated? Also what is the purpose of dark matter? All this cannot be explained by a mere explosion. The dynamics of an explosion of matter is way too linear imo. And I do understand your point about the plant being green not because of its individual atoms being green. If they were the plant would probably be black. I guess the BB is the best theory scientists can come up with given all that is known. But I think there's more to it than just a simple explosion.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 13 by Taz, posted 10-22-2007 10:39 PM | | Taz has replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 27 of 76 (430073)
10-23-2007 10:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
10-23-2007 9:49 AM
|
|
Is it safe to say that gravity is a product of the universe? Also if the BB is not an explosion but an expansion, than what drives the expansion?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by Percy, posted 10-23-2007 9:49 AM | | Percy has not replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 29 of 76 (430081)
10-23-2007 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by Spektical
10-23-2007 10:19 AM
|
|
Also if the universe is unbounded, then how can it expand? What is the medium outside the universe?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 10:19 AM | | Spektical has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 30 by Annafan, posted 10-23-2007 10:47 AM | | Spektical has replied | | | Message 32 by Dr Jack, posted 10-23-2007 11:00 AM | | Spektical has not replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 31 of 76 (430083)
10-23-2007 10:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by Annafan
10-23-2007 10:47 AM
|
|
lol. So if the universe is unbounded than its not expanding. And if its not expanding than there is a different reason or cause for the movement of galactc bodies. This again brings me to my original question if everything is moving away from everything else, than why or how is andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky way?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by Annafan, posted 10-23-2007 10:47 AM | | Annafan has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 10-23-2007 11:04 AM | | Spektical has replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 34 of 76 (430092)
10-23-2007 11:30 AM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Jack
10-23-2007 11:04 AM
|
|
ok I understand that the galaxies are moving faster than the universe' rate of expansion thus they're getting closer to each other, which makes sense. However, why is it meaningless to think of a medium outside the universe? I mean if 'something' is expanding, then it must be quantified. Maybe I'm misconceiving the universe itself. It just doesn't make any sense to me that u can use the baloon example and refute the idea of quantity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by Dr Jack, posted 10-23-2007 11:04 AM | | Dr Jack has not replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
Agreed..That's why I posted the OP. Its stimulating discussing these things with you guys and girls. Edited by Spektical, : No reason given.
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 43 of 76 (430117)
10-23-2007 12:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
10-23-2007 11:55 AM
|
|
I also mentioned ex nihilo. The way cosmic origins are most commonly explained, it does indeed sound like scientists propose that the universe came from nothing. This isn't true. The universe existed as the singularity and expanded from there. It has always existed - remember that time is another dimention just like the spacial ones. Time existed as a single point in the singularity, just as the other dimensions did. Asking what came "before" this point is like asking what is north of the North Pole - the question is flawed, becasue the term "before" refers to a point earlier in time. For all of time, the universe has been expanding from a singular point. Asking what came "before" that is meaningless, because time had no meaning in the singularity, when all dimensions would have been 0, and single point. This is probably the most difficult of the concepts to grasp. Yes I understand. So just as the north pole is a characteristic of the earth, time is a characteristic of 'this' universe. However, this implies that just like the earth, the universe is a quantified closed system of a different quality. Is it the same as comparing a hydrogen atom to the earth?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 11:55 AM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 3:11 PM | | Spektical has not replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 44 of 76 (430119)
10-23-2007 1:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 41 by Taz
10-23-2007 12:47 PM
|
|
Time is not a tangible thing..its a unit of measure. It should be applied to anything. But if the universe always existed, then time is irrelevant and non-existant.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 41 by Taz, posted 10-23-2007 12:47 PM | | Taz has replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
what is the definition of matter?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 3:43 PM | | Spektical has replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 48 of 76 (430148)
10-23-2007 2:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 46 by Taz
10-23-2007 2:03 PM
|
|
Can you explain how you arrived at this? I'm having trouble following your logic. You said that time is something that belongs to the universe, just like the north pole belongs to the earth. However time does not denote a location or co-ordinate, it denotes itself really. In other words the north pole exists as opposed to the south pole or the equator or the tropic of cancer. You're also saying that the north pole can only be applied to the earth, which means you're limiting yourself to the confines of the earth itself. My question considers that if the universe is in fact expanding in a particular direction, an outward one, then this implies a beginning which denotes a point in time (t=0). But t=0 only applies to the UNIVERSE, not anything BEFORE that. Thus time is eternal and there is no beginning. Edited by Spektical, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 46 by Taz, posted 10-23-2007 2:03 PM | | Taz has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 3:59 PM | | Spektical has replied |
|
Spektical
Member (Idle past 5995 days) Posts: 119 Joined: 10-16-2007
|
|
|
Message 52 of 76 (430167)
10-23-2007 3:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by Rahvin
10-23-2007 3:43 PM
|
|
so space can exist without matter?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 3:43 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 54 by Rahvin, posted 10-23-2007 4:00 PM | | Spektical has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2