Lilly Posted June 22, 2014 #76 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Except that observation shows galaxies distributed evenly with no preferred direction of expansion. And exactly what is the universe rotating in relation to? Exactly, this is what I understood as well, in my limited ability to understand this stuff (my background is in life sciences). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 22, 2014 #77 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I think it would be possible for the cosmos as we know it to rotate even if there is no edge so long as it closes in on itself. The question would be how did it get that momentum and probably someone would figure out a way. That doesn't seem to be an issue thought, and kinda makes my head spin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 22, 2014 #78 Share Posted June 22, 2014 I think it would be possible for the cosmos as we know it to rotate even if there is no edge so long as it closes in on itself. The question would be how did it get that momentum and probably someone would figure out a way. That doesn't seem to be an issue thought, and kinda makes my head spin. The problem with that sort of rotation (one of the problems, that is) is that physical rotation inside a closed universe creates a favored perspective. Astophysics today, and cosmology generally, rely on the principle that there is no preferred direction or location. If there were, then absolute velocity could be measured against the fixed line of the axis of rotation and there would be no Relativity, a theory that has held up so well for a hundred years that speculation about rotation around an axis is generally ignored. The rotations being talked about in the link provided earlier do not include this axis. They are resultant rotations - calculated by adding up all the rotations we can see in the observable universe. It is possible, presumably, that the universe is in it's entirey rotaing around an axis that lies entirely outside the universe. That is, in the multiverse, assuming it exists. Such rotation is impossible for us to observe, however, and would have no effect at all on our universe. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astral Hillbilly Posted June 22, 2014 #79 Share Posted June 22, 2014 If some of these theories are correct, please explain to me how the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way if it's moving away from us ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 22, 2014 #80 Share Posted June 22, 2014 Locally, gravity is FAR stronger than the force of expansion of the universe. That's the same reason the Solar System isn't getting bigger along with the universe. Harte 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted June 23, 2014 #81 Share Posted June 23, 2014 I think it would be possible for the cosmos as we know it to rotate even if there is no edge so long as it closes in on itself. The question would be how did it get that momentum and probably someone would figure out a way. That doesn't seem to be an issue thought, and kinda makes my head spin. Which begs the question is your head spinning or is the universe spinning around your head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted June 23, 2014 #82 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Locally, gravity is FAR stronger than the force of expansion of the universe. That's the same reason the Solar System isn't getting bigger along with the universe. Harte Exactly and why we are destined to crash into Andromeda. I don't have a link handy but I understand they have recently measured the exact expansion rate of space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted June 23, 2014 #83 Share Posted June 23, 2014 If some of these theories are correct, please explain to me how the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way if it's moving away from us ? As Harte said, locally, as in our local galactic group gravity dominates. It is only over unbelievably vast distances that expansion becomes the major force 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astral Hillbilly Posted June 23, 2014 #84 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Wow ! I can't wait to get to Heaven, so I'll understand all these things I've wondered about here on Earth and our universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted June 24, 2014 Author #85 Share Posted June 24, 2014 You do realize there's a difference between the observable universe and how the universe may actually be shaped, right? The observable universe is spherical (because we're observing outward in all directions) and is centered on the observer wherever they may be located regardless of the shape of the actual universe. Agree. The visible universe is round, actually drive. The invisible and the other universes are not discussed here. Telescopes and satellites can only see the visible universe. So we have seen and our galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 24, 2014 #86 Share Posted June 24, 2014 So we are not rotating but expanding, and the expansion only applies when gravity gets weak enough (inverse square law). Otherwise local gravity and random motions prevail. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted June 24, 2014 #87 Share Posted June 24, 2014 So we are not rotating but expanding, and the expansion only applies when gravity gets weak enough (inverse square law). Otherwise local gravity and random motions prevail. Yeah though there is a theory that over time as expansion continues it will eventually overwhelm gravity. (The "Big Rip") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted June 24, 2014 Author #88 Share Posted June 24, 2014 If some of these theories are correct, please explain to me how the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course with the Milky Way if it's moving away from us ? Rotation of the bodies have in the solar system and galaxies and blue shift. Amdromeda and the Milky Way are doing it for the sake of speed their different orbits. The galaxy, which is closer to the center at a slower pace. That gravity is responsible, then the Magellanic clouds would not be pulled away, and the dwarf galaxy of Andromeda would not have the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astral Hillbilly Posted June 24, 2014 #89 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Andromeda a dwarf galaxy ? I thought it was bigger than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 25, 2014 #90 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Andromeda a dwarf galaxy ? I thought it was bigger than ours. It's is. Weitter Duckss' post come across as if he is using translation software (the way the occasional word gets missed and remains in Bosnian makes me think this) and so it could be a translation problem. Andromeda has dwarf satellite galaxies in the same way that the Milky Way has the Magellanic Clouds, it could be these that he is referring too. The problem is that we have a poor translation of a poor hypothesis based on poor understanding. The end result is that we end up as much in the dark as Weitter Duckss is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted June 25, 2014 Author #91 Share Posted June 25, 2014 I will take quotes from the articles: It is not reasonable to claim that, due to the gravitational force, the attraction exists between the galaxy of Andromeda and our own galaxy, but at the same time the same gravitational force does not affect the dwarf galaxies between these two. The Large and the Small Magellanic Clouds are located 1.5 and 3 widths of our galaxy from us, therefore the gravity has no effect on them and they are moving away, whereas Andromeda is 22 widths away and it is obvious that the gravitational force has no effect on it. … For the objects on the same direction to have significantly different speeds, there should be some reasons for it, and here they are not. If one of them would be size, then the dwarf galaxies (Andromeda and Milky Way) that exist between the two would collide sooner, but they either move away or have a status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 25, 2014 #92 Share Posted June 25, 2014 It is just that things were chaotic at first and a lot of that random motion remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted June 25, 2014 Author #93 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The theme is composed of 21 of the article. look Short Review on the Web if you want to know in advance end of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 25, 2014 #94 Share Posted June 25, 2014 The Magellanic Clouds are in orbit around the Milky Way so they most certainly ARE affected by the same gravitational forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harte Posted June 25, 2014 #95 Share Posted June 25, 2014 Here is a list of 26 dwarf galaxies that are (mostly) known to be in orbit around the Milky Way. There's some small doubt about the Magellenic Clouds. Probably been resolved but I don't know. Harte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted June 25, 2014 Author #96 Share Posted June 25, 2014 If gravity attracts Andromeda, why does not attract first dwarf galaxies? They are under heavy attacks of gravity, Amdromeda and the Milky Way must them ago attract, but it's not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 25, 2014 #97 Share Posted June 25, 2014 If gravity attracts Andromeda, why does not attract first dwarf galaxies? They are under heavy attacks of gravity, Amdromeda and the Milky Way must them ago attract, but it's not happening. Do you understand ANY orbital mechanics? You are stuck to the Earth's surface by gravity. Meteorites from space plunge to the ground under the attraction of Earth's gravity. Despite this the International Space Station passes over your head without falling to the ground. If you understand this then you should be able to understand why the Milky Way's satellite galaxies don't crash into the Milky Way (the word satellite should be your major clue here). Weitter Duckss, you are claiming that conventional astronomy is wrong yet you don't seem to be able to understand concepts explained by Kepler and Newton four centuries ago. I find it impossible to take your posts seriously as you don't seem to understand the very concepts you are challenging. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 26, 2014 #98 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The above posts about orbits and satellites and celestial mechanics put me in mind of a theory half-formed in my head about how people come to bizarre notions about the universe. They of course for some reason are uninformed, and so of course when they hear something scientific they don't understand, but that is uncomfortable, so they think about it, which is natural but should be avoided until you know something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weitter Duckss Posted June 26, 2014 Author #99 Share Posted June 26, 2014 It's a little math, it is difficult to set up doubt. You can see completely edit system, but how that fits into the theory of the explosion of the universe, and why? If the universe is here edit, then edit it in its entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sepulchrave Posted June 26, 2014 #100 Share Posted June 26, 2014 It's a little math, it is difficult to set up doubt. You can see completely edit system, but how that fits into the theory of the explosion of the universe, and why? If the universe is here edit, then edit it in its entirety. Can you please explain why you think the Universe has an ``equatorial bulge''? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now