Universe Expansion

[NotEinstein]

No. Just young and new.

Surely many of us went through a phase where we thought our ideas just might be the next Einstein-like breakthrough. But we didn't have the internet where we could post stuff and maybe enough people might 'like' it.

(Check the age Nebel lists on his profile page...)

 

[DaveC426913]

(Check the age Nebel lists on his profile page...)

Good point. Whether accurate or not, it highlights the fact that naivete is not peculiar to the young.

 

[NotEinstein]

Good point. Whether accurate or not, it highlights the fact that naivete is not peculiar to the young.

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[nebel]

Good point. Whether accurate or not, it highlights the fact that naivete is not peculiar to the young.

yeah, there is no fool like an old fool. nebel in his octogenarian naivite' even gave his birthday, so NE could try to ferret out his misappropriating data.

No. Just young and new.

Surely many of us went through a phase where we thought our ideas just might be the next Einstein-like breakthrough. But we didn't have the internet where we could post stuff and maybe enough people might 'like' it.

or actually had that possibility of having germaine ideas novelty confirmed by US Patent Office examiners and turned them into million $ sales.
or have , what they thought was a breakthrough process patented (as an embodiment), only to find out later, hat it was actually conceived a century earlier. confirmed as valid though. In other words they have already a sterling record. of course
The self appointed GOD*s on many sites get their jollies by attempting to decimate the personalities of these innocents by often frivolous in hominrm attacks. tempting.
* Guardians Of Discourse

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

This is profoundly incorrect. It is expanding; but the galaxies are closing the gap faster than the expansion.

No observational evidence of this statement of yours, it is more or less wishful thinking.
It is very clear that for distances smaller than around one billion light year, there is no appreciable expansion, so making a statement that expansion between Andromeda & MW (d = 2.5 mly only) is there but filled in by gravity, is not science. If it is so, then in this infinite vast we should have two objects so strategically massed and placed that expansion is just overcome by gravity! You agree?

 

[NotEinstein]

No observational evidence of this statement of yours, it is more or less wishful thinking.

My statement has the same amount of observational evidence as yours.

Also, it may not be observational evidence, but current models predict it; there is no "humans have a special place in the universe, and the space around them specifically doesn't expand"-clause in them.

It is very clear that for distances smaller than around one billion light year, there is no appreciable expansion,

Does the fact you are backpeddling mean you know I'm right? Your original statement was that there was no expansion at all, but now you've downgraded it to "appreciable expansion".

so making a statement that expansion between Andromeda & MW (d = 2.5 mly only) is there but filled in by gravity, is not science.

You've worded it weirdly...

Funny thing: it's actually precisely what current models predict. The gravity in the local group is strong enough to overcome the effect of space expansion. If you want to call the current models "not science", that's your choice.

If it is so, then in this infinite vast we should have two objects so strategically massed and placed that expansion is just overcome by gravity! You agree?

I don't understand what you are trying to say... What "infinite vast"? Why would anything need to be "strategically massed", and what does that even mean? And I don't see why the expansion has to be "just overcome" by gravity?

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

My statement has the same amount of observational evidence as yours.

So you agree that there is no evidence for what you are saying, you probably would have read from somewhere, to me that sounds like you are defending the current models from a position of ignorance.

Funny thing: it's actually precisely what current models predict. The gravity in the local group is strong enough to overcome the effect of space expansion. If you want to call the current models "not science", that's your choice.

Link a paper for your claim. Not some popular article, some paper with maths which would establish that metric expansion is "overcome" by gravity in local group. Lets see how much you know about current models.

Does the fact you are backpeddling mean you know I'm right? Your original statement was that there was no expansion at all, but now you've downgraded it to "appreciable expansion".

No thats not back-peddling. That is just to tell you that you are mindlessly making a statement that expansion between Milky Way and Andromeda is overcome by gravity, when the current theory says there cannot be anything observable till at least 1 bly.

I don't understand what you are trying to say... What "infinite vast"? Why would anything need to be "strategically massed", and what does that even mean? And I don't see why the expansion has to be "just overcome" by gravity?

Then read some Mechanics or keep reading this portion of my post again and again till you understand, otherwise carry on with your word games.

 

[exchemist]

So you agree that there is no evidence for what you are saying, you probably would have read from somewhere, to me that sounds like you are defending the current models from a position of ignorance.



Link a paper for your claim. Not some popular article, some paper with maths which would establish that metric expansion is "overcome" by gravity in local group. Lets see how much you know about current models.



No thats not back-peddling. That is just to tell you that you are mindlessly making a statement that expansion between Milky Way and Andromeda is overcome by gravity, when the current theory says there cannot be anything observable till at least 1 bly.



Then read some Mechanics or keep reading this portion of my post again and again till you understand, otherwise carry on with your word games.

Well try this from Cornell University Astronomy Dept: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...g-along-with-the-entire-universe-intermediate

This seems to be too basic to be the subject of current papers "with maths". But as for maths, if you did a tiny bit of research of your own (as I have just done), you would quickly discover that the value of H is ~ 70km/s/Mpc.

From this is obvious that the amount of mutual recession of members of the Local Group due to Hubble expansion is predicted to be very small indeed - and easily overcome by the gravitational attraction between them.

 

[exchemist]

Well try this from Cornell University Astronomy Dept: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...g-along-with-the-entire-universe-intermediate

duplicate deleted

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Well try this from Cornell University Astronomy Dept: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...g-along-with-the-entire-universe-intermediate

Nothing there except some bland statement.
No doubt it has certain value as it has come from some authority.
Pl link some maths which can clearly establish the compensation/neutralization of expansion with gravity.
When we cannot observe any expansion at such small distance (2.5 mly is small for metric expansion), then the question of overcoming does not arise. Yes, it fits with our argument, that gravity is pulling them at a faster rate, absence of expansion in local clusters is not a very inconvenient observation for current models.

 

[exchemist]

Nothing there except some bland statement.
No doubt it has certain value as it has come from some authority.
Pl link some maths which can clearly establish the compensation/neutralization of expansion with gravity.
When we cannot observe any expansion at such small distance (2.5 mly is small for metric expansion), then the question of overcoming does not arise. Yes, it fits with our argument, that gravity is pulling them at a faster rate, absence of expansion in local clusters is not a very inconvenient observation for current models.

Just done. Now YOU do some maths for a change and tell me why I am wrong, with worked calculations. (Hint: the Local Group is 3Mpc across.)

 

[NotEinstein]

So you agree that there is no evidence for what you are saying,

No, I'm only pointing out I have provided the same amount of evidence as you have.

you probably would have read from somewhere, to me that sounds like you are defending the current models from a position of ignorance.

If that's the case, then you are the one attacking them from a position of ignorance. Since the current models have proven quite valuable, the default position (null hypothesis) is to use them. In other words, you are the one that carries the burden of proof.​

Link a paper for your claim.

I'll link one after you link one for your claim.

Not some popular article, some paper with maths which would establish that metric expansion is "overcome" by gravity in local group. Lets see how much you know about current models.

You first.

But I'll give you a hint: look up Hubble's Law. Does it give a zero expansion rate for small (non-zero) distances? (Oh, I see exchemist already pointed the existence of this law out to you.)

No thats not back-peddling. That is just to tell you that you are mindlessly making a statement that expansion between Milky Way and Andromeda is overcome by gravity, when the current theory says there cannot be anything observable till at least 1 bly.

And that's exactly where you are back-peddling. You initially claimed there was no expansion whatsoever, and now you've sneakily changed your position that it is unobservable. I've made no statements about the latter (in fact, I probably agree with it), I've only called you out on the first.

Then read some Mechanics or keep reading this portion of my post again and again till you understand, otherwise carry on with your word games.

You appear to be the one engaging in word games by using non-standard terminology, failing to communicate your meanings properly, and then refusing to explain what you really meant.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Just done.

I see no such maths, anywhere in your post.

Now YOU do some maths for a change and tell me why I am wrong,

No, you are not wrong, because you have made no statement of your own. You are typing what you have read in that popular article, your only reason for agreeing with that, is it comes from authority.

with worked calculations. (Hint: the Local Group is 3Mpc across.)

You are so wholeheartedly following the current position, so give at least one scientific paper with maths which can cogently establish that any cosmological expansion is overtaken by gravity. My position is that it is a mere statement, some sort of qualitatively aligning with Big Bang Cosmology/red shift interpretation without any trace of evidence.

So what if local group is 3 Mpc? What do you want to say? It validates my stand that 3 Mpc (1o mly) is much less than 1 bly, so even with the current models there is no observable expansion, so making a statement that expansion between andromeda and milky way (<2.4 mly) is overtaken by gravity is like saying there is a abode of God at the center of Andromeda, but it cannot be seen because the Andromeda light has hidden it. You are not much better than religious fanatics on this point.

 

[exchemist]

I see no such maths, anywhere in your post.



No, you are not wrong, because you have made no statement of your own. You are typing what you have read in that popular article, your only reason for agreeing with that, is it comes from authority.



You are so wholeheartedly following the current position, so give at least one scientific paper with maths which can cogently establish that any cosmological expansion is overtaken by gravity. My position is that it is a mere statement, some sort of qualitatively aligning with Big Bang Cosmology/red shift interpretation without any trace of evidence.

So what if local group is 3 Mpc? What do you want to say? It validates my stand that 3 Mpc (1o mly) is much less than 1 bly, so even with the current models there is no observable expansion, so making a statement that expansion between andromeda and milky way (<2.4 mly) is overtaken by gravity is like saying there is a abode of God at the center of Andromeda, but it cannot be seen because the Andromeda light has hidden it. You are not much better than religious fanatics on this point.

You are like someone who, having been told that molecules are too small to see with a microscope, persists in looking down a microscope and then exclaiming that there is no evidence for the existence of molecules.

You appear to be claiming that the movement of the Local Group is evidence against cosmic expansion, in spite of having had it pointed out to you that the distances between members of the Local Group are too small for cosmic expansion to be expected to dominate over motion due to gravitation.

Both I and Not Einstein have given you the information to understand this. I do not believe you are sufficiently stupid to have failed to see it. I therefore conclude that are not being sincere in your objections.

Your comparison of me to a religious fanatic is both unwarranted and obnoxious.

It seems to me your whole intervention in this thread is just more vexatious trolling, like a great number of your previous posts on this forum.

I am not wasting any more time on this.

 

[origin]

I see no such maths, anywhere in your post.

Here is some simple math, of course I realize it will not make a difference with you since you are just trolling, but it seemed sort of fun to play with some numbers...

Looking at the example of the Andromeda galaxy and the Milky way galaxy.

Distance between the 2 galaxies - 2,537,000 ly = 0.78 Mpc

The closing speed of the 2 galaxies is 400,000 km/hr

Hubble constant - 260,000 km/hr/Mpc

Expansion rate of space between Andromeda and the Milky way: $$0.78 Mpc \times 260,000 km/hr/Mpc = 203,000 km/hr$$

So the relative movement through space of the 2 galaxies if there was no expansion would be 600,000 km/hr

At what distance is the closing speed through space equal to the expansion of space:

$$\frac{600,000 km/hr}{ 260,000 km/hr/Mpc} = 2.3 Mpc$$

So simply looking at the current closing speed of the Andromeda galaxy, if the galaxy was 'magically' moved to > 2.3 Mpc from the Milky way galaxy, then they would be receding from each other. The actual velocity through space of the galaxy would be less than the expansion of space between the galaxies.

Hopefully I did not make any conceptual or math errors.

 

[NotEinstein]

Here is some simple math, of course I realize it will not make a difference with you since you are just trolling, but it seemed sort of fun to play with some numbers...

I have to admit, I was too lazy to do the calculations myself, so thank you for this post! Now let's see whether RajeshTrivedi appreciates it as well...

 

[origin]

I have to admit, I was too lazy to do the calculations myself, so thank you for this post! Now let's see whether RajeshTrivedi appreciates it as well...

Don't hold your breath....

 

[kx000]

Space is finite. There are only so many things to fill the universe with, that if space were infinite the same things would coexist.

 

[NotEinstein]

Space is finite. There are only so many things to fill the universe with, that if space were infinite the same things would coexist.

I fail to see why identical things aren't allowed to exist?

 

[DaveC426913]

SciAm did an article about this a few years ago. Positing an infinite universe, they calculated the distance (in metres) between two identical things.