Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum old topic

dehammer asks:
"if they have no way of measuring the movement separately, its sounds like an opinion. tell me how is it that our galaxy and Andromeda's are approaching each other unless there is a contraction of space"

I already answered that earlier in this thread but apparently you didn't understand it. Reread my comments about GRAVITATIONALLY BOUND objects. And then reread the links I provided for the same content.

The local group of galaxies are gravitationally bound. That means that their common gravity is strong enough to overcome the expansion of spacetime.

BTW We are closing with the Andromeda galaxy at the rate of more than 670,000 miler per hour. Whereas the Virgo cluster is being carried away from us at 2.370.000 miler per hour and the Coma cluster at 16,000,000 miler per hour.

Source:
Astronomy Magazine
September, 2006
Pages 58-59

again you assume that the theory of an expanding universe is a law of science. its merely a theory, which means it can easily be wrong. Just because its the most commonly accepted does not make it correct. once upon a time most scientist agreed that man would never fly. how many agree with that theory today.

after checking out that link it appears that we will be having a close encounter with the m31 galaxy (Andromeda) in about a billion years or less, depending on how much the two are pulled by gravity towards each other.

dehammer wrote:
"again you assume that the theory of an expanding universe is a law of science."

Amazing isn't it. Yes I assume that the currently proven work in astrophysics is correct. I do that in the same way that I assume when my doctor prescribes an antibiotic that it will improve my health. Stupid of me perhaps.

Can it be wrong. Of course. Is there any evidence that it is? No!

really? they proven it? when? show me the proof that that exist and the others are not possible. if its been proven, why are there still theories that contradict it. since it can only happen in deep space between the galaxies and we dont have the equipment to see that area, how did they prove it?

they have not proven it. it is just the most commonly held theory. If your taking medication based on no better theory that that, id say your in big trouble, my friend. better get a second opinion.

dehammer wrote:
"Really? they proven it? when? show me the proof that that exist and the others are not possible."

You just asked the impossible. Impossible because it is impossible to provide that proof that, as you say it, "others are not."

If you want to set a trap you'll need to use a better concealed trap.

I also can provide proof that the universe wasn't create by an invisible purple rhinoceros.

Surely you can do better. Go to google and look up the topic. It really is proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of astrophysicists.

no, its only the most accepted theory. there is a major difference.

once a extreamly long time ago (i want to say 5 to 6 thousand years) it was believe that the world was flat. this theory was accepted as a proven fact then. eventually it was disproven.

once it was accepted as a proven fact that the earth was round, but that it was the center of the universe. this was eventually disproven too.

once it was accepted as a proven fact by the vast majority of scientist that man could not fly and never would. this has been conceided by most as not proven now.

there is no way of testing it, and it does explain things now known. that does not mean it is a proven fact. until it is proven it is not a proven fact.

I wrote:
"It really is proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of astrophysicists."

dehammer wrote:
"no, its only the most accepted theory. there is a major difference."

Semantic quibble. Most accepted by the vast majority of subject-matter experts who are astrophysicists. If that makes you feel better so be it.

which means that there might be another explination that is more correct. you cant slam other explination as being impossible just because they are not widely accepted as most likely to be correct by the majority of astrophysicist experts. majorities have been wrong before. I can accept that most of the experts agree with that theory, but i cant accept it being pushed as a law of science. not until its proven.

dehammer wrote:
"which means that there might be another explination that is more correct."

To quote Bart Simpsons ... "Duh!"

That's how science works. It has nothing to do with what was written here. All science is based upon the accepted understanding that we don't know everything and that we must continue to search for better explanations.

so why do you slam people who use a simplistic explination for things that are rather complex if you follow anyone of the theories? why do you insist that everyone accept only explinations that follow the theory that you accept?

dehammer asks:
"so why do you slam people who use a simplistic explination for things that are rather complex"

I don't slam people for simplistic explanations. I slam people too lazy to use google.com to verify what they post before they post it.

Well that and those that are willfully ignorant.

And those that are intentional trolls such as Tim who obviously has zero interest in science.

Though I must confess that I have doubts that some of these people are real. Rather I am inclined to the belif that at least a few of them are the creations of someone writing a paper on pscyhology so this lab rat enjoys messing with the gal in the lab coat a bit.

then why did you slam me for giving a simplistic explination to someone that obviously did not understand and perhaps did not even know that google existed.

Simplistic does not equal wrong. One can give simple explanations and be correct.

But, since you asked and I am inclined to be striaght with you, you strike me as being lazy. Had you invested 2-3 minutes before some of your postings in a google search you would have realized you were posting things that just are not true. Again ... not simplistic ... not true.

I don't think every post requires a trip to the library, citations to peer reviewed journals, and integration under the curve. But just throwing stuff out in a science forum without an attempt at verification is, to me, laziness. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands and I think you should strive for accuracy.

PS: Whenever I post something that isn't just personal opinion I always do a search so I have bookmarked references in case someone challenges me.

first you have conceded that there are several different theories and that yours is only the most accepted one, then you say I'm wrong because i did not use the theory that you use as a basis of a simple explanations. can you see what is wrong with that? how can you say I'm wrong using the most simple to understand as a simple explanation when its never been proven which is correct.

Specifically for DA Morgan

Your response to my question is not scientific.

In fact it is not a response at all.

I have looked carefully at all of the web pages you listed, and none of them even begin to deal with the question.

The assumption that there had to be an explosive dynamic, or an explosive condition, or an explosive situation BEFORE the Universe emerged is entirely rational and reasonable.

It is supported by all the laws of Physics. Nothing can happene without an equal-opposite reaction.

Yet you call this question stupid.

Why is that?

actually there would not have to be an explosion per se. many believe the point from which it expanded was a singularity. I forget which of the light level experts in the area said that black holes would evaproate without new materials coming in. if all the material of the universe was pulled into one sigularity, then there could be no new material added. eventually it would evaporise, meaning that the material would expand from it rapidly. at first there would be no solid or even energy as we know it. In our universe, no matter can travel faster than light speed but would not apply as this was not matter. it would leave the spot at perhaps many times the speed of light. Only after it "congealled" (for lack of better more scientific term) in to energy and matter would it slow down. the material that "congealed first, would be slowed more, or the space around it would not expand as fast (depending on which way you choise to see it).

basically, untill it congealled into something that science can explain, the laws of physics that we know would not apply. Im sure there are laws that would apply to that material, perhaps even some laws identical to the ones that apply to matter and energy that we know. there is even one theory (with little acceptance last i heard) that each time a universe is created by a big crunch followed by a big bang, the laws of physics change.

Turak wrote:
"Your response to my question is not scientific."
and
"The assumption that there had to be an explosive dynamic, or an explosive condition, or an explosive situation BEFORE the Universe emerged is entirely rational and reasonable."

Look at the second link I posted:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/InTheBeginning.html

Let me quote for you from the first paragraph:
"Though the Big Bang suggests a colossal explosion, it wasn't really an "explosion" in the sense that we understand it."

The balance of the article provides clarification.

If you didn't understand what you read ask questions.