ACG52

I think you meant that expansion gets stronger as a function of distance. I attempted once to calculate the rate of expansion given the distance between earth and moon and disregarding gravity. I probably messed it up, but I got a result of about a tenth of a proton's diameter per second. A 747 has wings. Without them, it acts the same as a rock.

No.

They've all answered the question, when you allow for the distortions in your rephrasing. Overwhelms is the description of what happens. The attractive force of gravity is much, much, much stronger than the expansive force. Why does this seem so difficult for you to understand? The hubble constant, which is the current rate of expansion, is 69.32 m/s/megaparsec. At a distance of 199mlys (to continue your ridiculous argument) from us, the force of expansion and the force of gravity are balanced on a cusp, no red-shift, no blue-shift. Another 2 million lys and the rate of expansion, which continues to increase with distance is enough to overcome the attractiveness of gravity and space between us and the point 201million lys expands. I'm not real fond of analogies either, because most people confuse them with an actual model, rather than a simplified, dumbed down explanation, and just don't understand them. I don't know where you got point 4, other than by totally misunderstanding something you were told. The rate of expansion increases with the distance between points in space at the rate of 69.32 meters per second for each 3.26 million light years. That's very, very little, which is why it is easily overcome by gravity. But the farther away you get, the greater the rate of increase becomes and the weaker gravity becomes. At some point, (outside the local galactic supergroup, about 200 million lys away) gravity is weak enough so that the distance between objects increases. At this point number 5 is gaining.

Kristalris is a lawyer, with no scientific education.

You start each piece of nonsense the same, and then always end up with vacuum cleaners.

Didn't you have another thread, exactly the same as this one? Here's a suggestion. Ignore the reputation system.

You were given the answer. Gravity is overwhelmingly stronger than expansion. Galaxies don't expand. Stellar systems don't expand, The space between atoms doesn't expand. There's a whole bunch of things which don't expand. Now, you don't like the answer, or simply can't understand it. That's your problem, not the universe's.

And more nonsense from our latest Pain. When we say a theory works, it means it accurately predicts and explains how the physical universe operates, not the universe in your head. GR makes very specific predictions, which have always been confirmed. BTW, what is this GN you keep referring to?

Start off with this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space After you've read it, you can come back and tell us you don't understand it and so it therefore can't be correct.

But you didn't. You've just shown that you don't know.

Nor does sound have anything to do with electrons. No, it's not. This is the ONLY statement you made which is correct. Nothing else you've said even vaugely corresponds to reality.

There is no need for any additional gravity. The force of expansion is far too weak and gravity, without any additional force, completely overwhelms expansion.. The force of expansion does not balance gravity. Expansion is so small that it doesn't even play any part on distances smaller tham 200 million lys.

This is simply complete nonsense. Not even worth discussing.

The rate of expansion increases with distance because it is a scaling factor. The effect does not increase. Gravity is stronger than expansion at distances of less than 200 million lys. That's what observation shows us.

Why would anything 'fail to orbit'? Does the earth 'fail to orbit' the sun? Cosmological expansion has nothing to do with galactic orbits. Galaxies are not 'exempt', they are gravitationally bound. As far as evidence goes, we have observations. Within our local galactic supergroup, there is no recession between galaxies. Outside the supergoup, at about 200 million lys, we see recession.

The force of expansion is less than the attractive force of gravity below 200 million light years. Galaxies which are 200 million lys and closer are gravitationally bound

M-theory has 10 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.

That is correct. Time is not a spatial dimension.

The truth is, there is no way to become a 'self-taught' theoretical physicst. You spend a lot of years studying, or you don't do it.

Sam, if your posts were just a little bit more knowledgeable, perhaps you wouldn't have so many issues with negative ratings. IOW, study a little bit.

Sam, a dimension is direction of possible movement. Forward-back, up-down, left-right, are the three known spatial dimensions.

It has nothing to do with traveling any distance.

No, it's got nothing to do with travel or motion. On the quantum level, the energy of the various fields which fill space can vay wildly over very small spaces and very short times. This is due to quanutm uncertaintly. At any given point of space the energy can be high enough to manifest virtual particles, but only for the very short times allowed by quantum physics.

This is an internet discussion forum. Do you really think that any kind of reputation here matters? Perhaps instead of longevity, they get good marks because they make knowledgeable, intelligible posts.

The energy they used to exist was 'borrowed' from the universe and must be returned in a limited time, which I believe is inversely proportional to the amount of energy needed to manifest the virtual particles. They exist for a brief flicker of time, that's why they're virtual.