Leaderboard

Thanks Joigus, when you haven't got a grounding in this type of thing (like me) it's all a little mind blowing, but i'm going to keep looking and learning. And ill keep asking questions to try and get some understanding. Thanks again

This was my first ever post on this forum, and I completely forgot about it until today. And I just wanna say that seeing several replies made me really excited. Thank you guys for identifying the flaws in my proposition. I am studying to be an astrophysicist and have been searching for people who share the same passions for astronomy and physics as I do, so I figured forums would be a great idea. I really appreciate having much more knowledgeable and intelligent individuals critique my ideas, because that will definitely help me grow in this field. So thank you!

Hi all, im not a physicist, but have an interest. Now given that most agree in the big bang theory, means everything is moving away from each other in a ever expanding universe. That being the case how can the milky way galaxy be going to crash into the Andromeda galaxy? Albeit in a few years time.

Thanks again to you, I’m learning so much and am not afraid to ask questions, as I have been before! Just been watching a program on the Hubble telescope, my question is, do you think that the Hubble telescope is the greatest step forward in cosmology and astronomy. Given the magnificent things that have been achieved from the Mercury missions( think that was the first) through new horizons images of Pluto to Mars exploration, the fact that Hubble can give us a look into the past at the early formation of the universe means, for me Hubble is the greatest step forward. would love to hear other opinions though.

Personally I have nothing against religious people, or religion for that matter. In a vast majority of cases in this day and age, I believe people use it and practise it, more as a comfort entity then anything else, and as a wall against the scientifically based conclusion that death is it...it is final and the end. That worries many people imo, and religion gives them that inner warm fuzzy feeling that upon their death, they will be magically transported to heaven or its equivalent. There are many good decent religious people in this world that mean well, and truly practise the basis of their religion. My Mrs is one of them. She was born in Fiji, now a naturalized Aussie, and like almost all Fijians, have a strong religious connection, based on Christianity or Hindi for Indian Fijians. She also puts up with me. But basically, we tolerate our differences and have been together for 42 years now, and both our first marriages. My only beef against religious people are the one's that come to science forums such as this and others, preaching their fire and brimstone, and attempting to belittle science. I have seen the video in the opening post, and while I like both those esteemed scientists, Carl Sagan imo had a far more subtle approach to people of a religious leaning. But that's a personal taste. I don't particularly see myself as an Atheist, more a student of reasonability and scientific application, that simply sees any God as a mythical entity constructed to bring comfort to an individual, and as a companion to their ignorance of science and the scientific explanation.

Yeah, good point actually. Have you seen this model of a BH? https://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html and the paper.....https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0411060.pdf

Just to build on what has already been said. "Everything" is not moving away from each other. The atoms making up the Earth aren't, The planets are not moving away from the Sun (or at least not due to reasons tied to universal expansion), the stars in the galaxy aren't flying apart... All these structures are held together by interactions that are much stronger than universal expansion.* Our galaxy, along with Andromeda and a few others are part of a local group bound together by mutual gravitation. Our local group is one of many in a larger cluster. You have to go to scales beyond that for expansion to take hold. So when we say that the expansion of the universe is causing galaxies to move apart, what is really is that the larger bound clusters are moving apart from each other. * One way of imagining this is to think of yourself as standing on a polished tiled floor in you stocking feet. The tiles are expanding so that the center of the tiles move apart. But the bottoms of your feet, being held together by molecular force, don't expand along with them. If you have a friend on an adjacent tile he, would, over time, move further and further away from you as the floor expands. Unless: You reach out and grasp hands. Now, as long as your grip is stronger than the friction between your feet and the floor, you will stay the same distance apart. Gravity acts like your grasped hands. The difference is that gravity gets weaker over distance. So, as long as galaxies are close enough to each other, gravity can keep them bound together, but when they are further part, it can't.

@studiot Thanks a lot for the reply . I am trying to learn basic mathematics with the help of some books i have I have a pdf copy of this book called , The Humongous Book of Algebra Problems . i have been going through it for the last few days If i have more questions i will come back here and ask

If the Universe started approximately 13.75 billion years ago as theorized by the 'Big Bang' and TIME itself only came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, then surely this must be 'Universal Time'. Yet Einstein and special relativity shows us that TIME is relative. There is no such thing as universal TIME. This has been experimentally proven. So then how could TIME only have come into existence with the Big Bang, as accepted by many supporters of the Big Bang. If TIME only came into existence with the Big Bang then that time would be universal. The universe would be 13.75 billion years old for us. And if there are aliens living in another galaxy the universe would have to be 13.75 billion years old for them as well. That Time would not be relative to either of us because the universe would have come into existence at the same moment for everyone in the universe. We would now have an entity that has been missing from physics - Universal Time. A concept of TIME that is not relative and cannot be relative because the same universe could not come into existence at different points in TIME for beings living in separate galaxies, if TIME itself only came into existence with the Big Bang. If that is the case then the universe is only 13.75 billion years old, relative to us here on earth but could be any age. Thoughts?

No, they come to the conclusion that you're a little off. At least I did. Likewise brook, which has a different connotation in standard English, meaning "to stand for or tolerate." As in, "He brooks no difference of opinion." You give the impression of playing games with your own internal language, which detracts from whatever you're trying to say.

I couldn't agree more. X-posted with Tristan L. OK. Thanks for drawing my attention to right English. I'm always eager to learn about language. But how many of those Anglish speakers are knowledgeable enough to have a meaningful conversation about second-order logic? See my point? I'm sure a compromise is possible. Mathematics has nothing to do with empire-building, does it?