Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The expanding Universe and Galactic collisions
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 21 of 76 (430054)
10-23-2007 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Spektical
10-22-2007 2:24 PM


The relative velocities of different stellar objects are greater in magnitude than the rate of expansion.
That's all there is to it really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Spektical, posted 10-22-2007 2:24 PM Spektical has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 22 of 76 (430055)
10-23-2007 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Spektical
10-22-2007 11:45 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?
Is it increasing? I thought that was still being determined. Either case, doesn't matter. Gravity is massively more powerful than expansion.
And where is the centre of the BB or the point in space from which it originated?
Everywhere. At t=0 (the bang) every point in the universe is in the same place. You're thinking of it like an explosion; it isn't like an explosion. There wasn't a bunch of space into which there was a big explosion.
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.
Fortunately all the scientists would agree with you. Have a read through the Wikipedia article on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Spektical, posted 10-22-2007 11:45 PM Spektical has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-23-2007 9:15 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 24 of 76 (430063)
10-23-2007 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Percy
10-23-2007 9:15 AM


It produces a more powerful force, no? I'd call that more powerful. It's the pervasiveness of expansionary effects that makes them more significant over larger scales, not their power. In the same way that the strong force is much more powerful than the gravitational force, but acts only over very short distances and so, on a larger scale, gravity comes to dominate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Percy, posted 10-23-2007 9:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 10-23-2007 9:49 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 26 of 76 (430072)
10-23-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Percy
10-23-2007 9:49 AM


When you said, "Gravity is massively more powerful than expansion," combined with your doubt that accelerating expansion has become accepted within mainstream cosmological circles, it sounded like an argument that the expansion would one day slow and reverse. It sounds like that's not what you were trying to say.
Yes, that's not what I was trying to say.
Maybe one of the cosmology buffs will check in and help us out here, but for my part I question the validity of likening the expansion of the universe (which is only postulated to be due to the effects of dark energy, not verified) to a force and then comparing it with the force of gravity, but perhaps it's just a preference for a different explanatory model that's at work in my mind.
As I understand it, modelling gravity as a force is not quite accurate either, but both can be reasonably simplified to such - more precisely if you treat gravitational effects as curvature of spacetime, the expansion is modelled as a reverse curvature (if you treat expansion in the same way as the cosmological constant) and this can then be simplified to a force model. But, I'm neither a Physicist nor a Cosmologist, so I'm open to correction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 10-23-2007 9:49 AM Percy has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 28 of 76 (430079)
10-23-2007 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Spektical
10-23-2007 10:19 AM


I suspect if you can answer that question, and provide proof for your answer, there's a nobel prize in it for us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 10:19 AM Spektical has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 32 of 76 (430085)
10-23-2007 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Spektical
10-23-2007 10:45 AM


There is no "outside the universe"; the concept is meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 10:45 AM Spektical has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 33 of 76 (430086)
10-23-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Spektical
10-23-2007 10:57 AM


Imagine a big sheet of rubber being stretched. Now imagine two ants crawling towards each other across that sheet. Each point on the sheet is moving away from each other, but the ants are moving with respect to those points. Providing the ants are crawling faster than they're being moved apart by the sheet they can still reach each other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 10:57 AM Spektical has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Spektical, posted 10-23-2007 11:30 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 66 of 76 (430266)
10-24-2007 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Phat
10-23-2007 5:15 PM


Re: What came first? Creator or Matter?
why do people always ask "who created God" hypothetically yet seem unable to address "how did the singularity originate"?
You've missed out half the argument, being asked "who created God" is what is known as being hoist by your own petard, it goes like this:
T: "Nothing can exist without a cause so God exists!"
A: "If nothing can exist without a cause, what cause God?"
T: "He's magic. It doesn't apply."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Phat, posted 10-23-2007 5:15 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024